




K 


111 








'■w 

___ . null mull III tru’t-w , , - ’tltiltfriKtlljriljtjultel 


wmmmmmm 





WfBwESES- 


... 

KSBSS 

fessjf* 

(■H 


.■■■ 

siiHHIBi 

^W 4 i 


^wroESw 


«SsglBl 

»»rf^«ffiBJsa£Warii!!s*! , 4hK; iK 






























.0 N 0 


.0^ *C- " ' ' V X s'** "> " .,0 ; ' 


J 3 s O A v 

,9^ * * • 0 /■ "c> 

, 0 * ^ aX 




"si' 


-/■ ,vY 
tT A* 








, > ^ 

> " O N 0 ' °^1 *81'° V* „ <*> * 0 » O 

\> ' s : '.- > 

'%> ^ °- 4\W \ !■ ^ -<^ x 

V> *%. c ■'' ,\^ '^/‘- '' ^ c * ,\X X ' 

? * -\: J i% a - ^ x * o5* * ».W a A 

u-,^ '—V t ."«/V /V *'V .*'•*-* '»-V\o-. 




r > h ^ 0 <v 

3 c * 0 S 5 0 _V _■ . 

s'* U > _\0' s- Y4 °p 




j»4'< 

0 a , ^ A O * y ' s _aO <* ' 0 » \ 

,/ *, % rP* v^l!% ^ ,*° 



^ ^ r 0 v v 1 8 * ^ t° NC 

C' \ s ^ a X 

* * \o* V v % * • ■ ■ '* v>V . v V fl N 0 / ,' =■ •> % # 9 ’ A 

*r , * .k'' , (\ V y „ , , i A '’o Sr. . v' ,A X 


* <0? 



iV 





>0 o 



o 0 




<^v y 



.0 

















THE NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY 
IN SOUTH CAROLINA > 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


Hgents 

THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY 

NEW YORK 

THE CUNNINGHAM, CURTISS & WELCH COMPANY 

LOS ANOELKS 

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 

LONDON AND EDINBURGH 

THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 

TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO 

THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY 

SHANGHAI 

KARL W. HIERSEMANN 


LEIPZIG 











SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICTS AND PARISHES IN nS3o 







The 

Nullification Controversy 
in South Carolina 


By 

Chauncey Samuel Boucher, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor of American History 
in Washington University 




THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 








Copyright 1916 By 
The University op Chicago 


All Rights Reserved 


Published June 1916 





Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


JUN 16 1316 

©CU43337 1 





MY FATHER AND MOTHER 


PREFACE 


To relate the story of the nullification con¬ 
troversy in South Carolina as it is found in the 
writings of the men who were participants in it, is 
the object of this monograph. For six years the 
conflict was bitterly waged and missed being civil 
war by a narrow margin. So much attention has 
been given to speculations on the theory of 
nullification from the standpoint of political sci¬ 
ence, that the history of the party contest has been 
neglected; and even from the theoretical view¬ 
point a detailed study of the views of the con¬ 
temporaneous supporters and opponents of the 
doctrine has been neglected. The effort has been 
made in this treatise to delineate the various shades 
of party beliefs at all stages of the controversy. 

In the search for materials the writer for¬ 
tunately gained access to files of several of the 
leading newspapers of the Union and the State 
Rights parties, representing both the interior and 
the coastal sections; several valuable pamphlet 
collections; and the unpublished correspondence 
and papers of prominent leaders of the opposing 

vii 


vm 


Preface 


factions, and of two men most prominently con¬ 
nected with the administration. For the courtesy 
and kind assistance rendered by the custodians 
and owners of these valuable materials, the author 
desires to express his appreciation. He is espe¬ 
cially indebted to Professor Claude H. Van Tyne 
and Professor Ulrich B. Phillips, both of the 
University of Michigan, for encouragement and 
counsel most generously given, and to Professor 
William E. Dodd, of the University of Chicago, 
who volunteered to read sections of the proof. 

In order to facilitate reading, the original punc¬ 
tuation and capitalization of many quotations 
have been changed somewhat to make them con¬ 
form more to present usage. 

C. S. Boucher 

St. Louis, Mo. 

March i, 1916 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


CHAPTER 

I. The Origin of the Conflict (1824-29) . 1 

II. Nullification Advocated and Denounced 
(1830) . 46 

III. The First Test of Strength (1830-31) . 88 

IV. A Year of Campaigning (1831) . . . . 119 

V. The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 

(1832) . 164 

VI. Nullification Adopted (1832) .... 208 

VII. Jackson and Nullification (1832-33) . . 228 

VIII. Nullification Suspended (1833) . . . 262 

IX. The Compromise Tariff and the Force 

Bill (1833) . 286 

X. The Test Oath (1833-35) . 316 

Bibliography . 367 

ix 









MAPS 

PAGE 

I. South Carolina Districts and Parishes 
in 1830 . facing iii 

II. Senate Vote on State Convention, 1830 . 108 

III. House Vote on State Convention, 1830 . 109 

IV. Jackson and Anti-Jackson Caucuses, 1831 161 

V. Popular Vote on State Convention, 1832 203 

VI. Legislature of 1832, for and against 

Convention .204 

VII. House Vote on Governor’s Counter- 
Proclamation, and Union Vote in Con¬ 
vention, 1832 . 244 

VIII. House Vote on the Test Oath, 1832 . . 245 

IX. House Vote on the Test Oath, 1833 . . 320 

X. Popular Vote for Legislature, 1834 . . 354 

XI. Legislature of 1834 . 355 

xi 






CHAPTER I 


THE ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT (1824-29) 

At the session of the South Carolina legislature 
which convened in November of 1825, Judge 
William Smith introduced a set of anti-bank, anti¬ 
internal improvement, and anti-tariff resolutions. 
They were adopted. Before this session there had 
appeared in South Carolina scattered evidences of 
opposition to nationalism, but this episode may be 
said to mark the beginning of the formidable anti¬ 
nationalist movement in the state. 1 South Caro¬ 
lina was not unique in this respect; other south¬ 
ern states were showing signs of a similar move¬ 
ment. In Virginia, Thomas Ritchie had been 
preaching strict construction and had thereby 
forfeited some of his popularity in the western 
counties, while William B. Giles, more to the 
satisfaction of the eastern counties, was even more 
outspoken in his anti-nationalistic doctrine. 2 

1 For a review of the position of the state up to this time, see 
Houston, Nullification in South Carolina, chaps, i-iv. 

2 See Charles H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie and Sectionalism in 
Virginia from 1776 to 1861. 


2 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

From the time of the South Carolina resolu¬ 
tions of 1825 against “governmental usurpations” 
until the South Carolina Exposition of 1828, the 
people of the state became more and more out¬ 
raged by the “usurpations,” chief among which 
was the tariff, until most of the people of the 
state considered not only warrantable, but highly 
proper, an opposition of a decidedly strong char¬ 
acter. But until the fall of 1828 few dared to 
think, or to admit thinking, of a direct conflict 
of state and federal authorities. Even then, when 
the proposition which might bring about such a 
conflict came, it had to come in the guise of a 
peaceable measure, if not honestly so. 

After the passage of the tariff bill of 1824 numer¬ 
ous anti-tariff meetings were held in various parts 
of the state. The tariff was denounced as a sys¬ 
tem of robbery and plunder, destructive to the 
southern states. Meetings adopted resolutions 
which pledged the participants to purchase no 
northern manufactures and no Kentucky horses; 
men delighted to talk of sacrifices for the sake of 
principle. George McDuffie was reported to have 
pulled off his broadcloth coat and to have given it 
to his servant, saying that it was fit only for the 
livery of a slave. Judge Daniel E. Huger is said 


The Origin of the Conflict 


3 


to have refused to eat Irish potatoes because they 
were from the North, and General Waddy Thomp¬ 
son was reported as having declared that he would 
live on snowbirds and make the judicial circuit 
on foot rather than eat Kentucky pork or ride a 
Kentucky horse. But in spite of all the talk about 
the injustice and oppression of the tariff, few 
questioned its constitutionality. And as for dis¬ 
union as a measure of resistance, many of the 
people who later supported it were now horrified 
at the expression of Dr. Thomas Cooper, presi¬ 
dent of South Carolina College, that it was time 
to “calculate the value” of the federal Union. 

During 1827 there appeared in the Charleston 
Mercury a series of articles, later published in 
pamphlet form, written by Robert J. Turnbull 
under the name of “Brutus.” The writer en¬ 
deavored to show that Congress and the Supreme 
Court had made the Constitution “a dead 
letter” which might “mean anything or ... . 
nothing.” 1 The broad-constructionists were se¬ 
verely arraigned, and McDuffie was particularly 
shown the error of his ways on this point. Suffi¬ 
cient opposition was aroused by the time the 

1 The Crisis: Thirty-three Essays on the Usurpations of the Federal 
Government. By Brutus, Charleston, 1827. Eleven essays were 
added to the series as originally published in the Charleston Mercury. 


4 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

legislature met in November for that body to feel 
justified in making an official declaration for the 
state. Both houses approved a set of resolutions 
which asserted the right of the people or the legis¬ 
lature of any state “to every extent not limited, 
to remonstrate against violations of the funda¬ 
mental compact .... between the people of the 
different states with each other as separate 
independent sovereignties.” All tariff acts, the 
object of which was not the raising of revenue 
nor the regulation of foreign commerce but the 
promotion of domestic manufactures, were pro¬ 
nounced violations of the Constitution, “in its 
spirit,” which ought to be repealed. They also 
denied the constitutional power of Congress to 
construct internal improvements. 1 

By this time John C. Calhoun saw clearly the 
danger to which the power of Congress to pass 
protective tariffs might lead; this power might 
“make one section tributary to another, and be 

1 And, having become somewhat exercised over the recent 
activities of the American Colonization Society, they resolved that, 
since it was not an object of national interest, Congress had no 
power in any way to patronize or direct appropriations for its benefit. 
The South Carolina senators in Congress were “instructed” and the 
representatives “requested” to act in accordance with these views 
(Report and Resolutions of the Special Committee of the Senate on the 
Subject of State Rights. Pamphlet). 


The Origin of the Conflict 


5 


used by the administration and artful and corrupt 
politicians to buy up partisans and retain power.” 
A meeting of the manufacturing interests at 
Harrisburg to devise measures to pass a tariff 
bill then pending set the dangerous example of— 

separate representation and association of great geo¬ 
graphical interests to promote their prosperity at the 
expense of other interests .... which of all measures 
that can be conceived is calculated to give the greatest 
opportunity to art and corruption and to make two of one 

nation.It must lead to defeat or oppression or 

resistance, or the correction of what perhaps is a great 
defect in our system; that the separate geographical 
interests are not sufficiently guarded . 1 

Calhoun even then was probably contemplating 
some such remedy as he framed for presentation 
to the state legislature at the end of the next 
year. He soon came to feel confident that the 
tariff was one of the greatest instruments of 
southern impoverishment, and that if persisted 
in it must reduce the South to poverty or compel 
an entire change of industry. 2 By the middle of 
1828 he was convinced that the South was so 

1 Calhoun Correspondence, American Historical Association Re¬ 
port, 1899, Vol. II: Calhoun to J. E. Calhoun, August 26, 1827. 

2 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to J. E. Calhoun, May 4, 
1828. 



6 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

alienated because of the tariff system that if a 
speedy and effective check upon this system were 
not soon applied a shock might shortly be ex¬ 
pected. 1 

In Congress the South Carolina delegation did 
much to present the southern reasons for opposing 
the passage of the tariff act of 1828. At one 
stage of the debate William Drayton moved to 
amend the title of the bill so as to read, “An act 
to increase the duties on certain imports, for the 
purpose of increasing the profits of certain manu¬ 
facturers.’’ He hoped thus to make possible an 
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States 
to try the constitutionality of the system, which 
could not be done if the title remained unchanged. 2 

In spite of southern opposition the tariff of 
“abominations” was passed. But this did not 
settle the matter, for, as the Mercury announced, 
the “passage of this pernicious measure” did not 
quell the feeling with which the people of South 
Carolina remonstrated against it, and with which 
it was opposed by her delegates in Congress. 3 The 

1 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to James Monroe, July io, 
1828. 

3 Charleston Mercury, April 30, 1828. This paper will be referred 
to hereafter as the Mercury. 

3 Mercury, May 28, 1828. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


7 


people saw remonstrances proving futile and 
began to think of the next necessary step. This, 
then, became the great question of the hour: What 
next ? Various views were immediately set forth; 
while one of the South Carolina representatives 
at Washington said a complete union of the whole 
South alone could save South Carolina and the 
South, other writers in the press of the state 
looked to the state legislature to decide on the 
proper course of resistance. At this juncture the 
Mercury , which later became an ardent nullifica¬ 
tion sheet, took a very sane and moderate posi¬ 
tion; it merely advocated caution and careful 
consideration before any step should be taken. 1 

1 Mercury, May 29, 1828. The editor wrote that the citizens of 
South Carolina felt with grief that the Constitution had been violated 
and that the great object of the confederacy had been shamefully 
perverted; that their remonstrances had been disregarded, their 
rights denied, and the solemn protests of their delegates laughed 
to scorn; that they had been reduced to a condition almost tanta¬ 
mount to colonial vassalage, and that they were never regarded 
except for the purpose of discovering in what way they could be 
rendered serviceable to the interests of others; that the burdens 
under which they then labored were but the probable forerunners of 
others still more oppressive, and that the future held for them nothing 
but wretchedness and embarrassment; that the great sources of their 
wealth were about to be dried up, and that the dignity of their 
state and their prosperity as a people were on the eve of leaving 
them forever. But, in spite of the fact that the people felt all this so 
deeply, and in spite of the impression nearly every reader of this 


8 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

By the middle of July communications denoun¬ 
cing the tariff were numerous in the southern 
papers, and especially in South Carolina many 
men wrote for publication. These communi¬ 
cated articles were signed with various fantastic 
names. The nom de plume was sometimes the 
name of some famous historic character of the 
state, nation, or world, some doctrine or theory, 
or was indicative of some class which the writer 
thought he represented. A man occasionally 
wrote under more than one name. Some of these 
anonymous writers wrote long series of articles 
and became widely known literary characters, 
though their real identity remained long or per¬ 
manently unknown to the public. There were 


editorial must have been forming before he finished it—that the 
editor was showing that there was surely but one course left for the 
South honorably to pursue—the editor concluded with a plea for 
careful consideration of the question on the part of every citizen 
before he formed his opinion as to what the policy of the state 
should be. “Whether,” he said, “the spirit of just dissatisfaction 
which now prevails should be allayed or extended; whether, as we 
have borne before, we shall magnanimously bear again, or by a 
convulsive effort shake off the burden which afflicts us; whether 
by any possible course of conduct, we can avert the misfortunes which 
threaten us, without incurring the hazard of others still more dread¬ 
ful and appalling—are questions which will naturally arise to the 
mind of every man, and which the people of this state may possibly 
be called upon to determine.” 


The Origin of the Conflict 


9 


hundreds of these writers who produced merely 
one or a few articles of no merit, who wrote simply 
to see something of their own in print; others, 
however, had marked ability which was recog¬ 
nized by the people of the state and country. 

“Leonidas,” one of these anonymous writers, in 
July, 1828, noted a rising spirit of discontent 
against the tariff bill “now in operation by the 
usurped powers of the Congress of the United 
States,” and asserted that those who were con¬ 
fident in the belief that this spirit would exhaust 
itself or be smothered by opposition and intimida¬ 
tion, considered too lightly the genius of the 
southern states and the principles for the sake of 
which the awakened people were gathering up 
their energies to meet the alarming crisis. 1 

As regards the attitude of the North to the out¬ 
cry of the South, it seemed to one South Carolina 
editor impossible for anyone who did not read the 
northern papers to form the slightest conception 
of the general tone of contempt, affected pity, and 
ridicule which they invariably employed toward 
the southern states, and especially of late toward 
South Carolina. 2 

1 Mercury , July 14, 1828. 

2 Mercury, July 11, 1828. 


io Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

In the various districts of the state 1 the first 
Monday of each month was designated as “sale 
day.” On that day, when the sheriff’s sale 
was held at the county seat, throngs of farmers 
and planters journeyed to their respective court¬ 
house towns to attend the sales, do their trading, 
meet and converse with neighbors of the district, 
and discuss questions of politics. Meetings were 
announced for this day, or were spontaneously 
convened, whenever any subject of importance was 
being agitated. The people always knew that if 
any subject became important during any month, 
there was likely to be a meeting on the next sale 
day to consider it; prominent leaders were occa¬ 
sionally present to address the people, and at 
times open debates were held. If there was 
intense party feeling and sharp division, the 
parties would meet separately. 

On the sale days of August and succeeding 
months in 1828, meetings were held at various 
places over the state to express again the opposi¬ 
tion of the people to the tariff, and to discuss 
possible plans of resistance. The tariff was now 
attracting so much attention that in many in- 

1 The coastal political divisions, smaller than those of the interior, 
were called parishes, while those of the interior were called districts. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


ii 


stances the people would not wait for sale day, 
but held special meetings; and in some cases the 
local districts of a congressional district met 
together in convention. Some of these anti¬ 
tariff meetings attracted special attention as being 
“the largest and most respectable meetings ever 
held in the district.” 1 The Abbeville meeting, in 
Calhoun’s district, was anticipated as one which, 
perhaps more distinctly than any other yet held, 
would embody the feeling of the interior and 
announce the course likely to be pursued by that 
section. Expectations were not disappointed. 
It was estimated that 5,000 were present, and 
resolutions were passed which strongly denounced 
the tariff. Although the protestants looked to 
state sovereignty for relief, they intrusted the 
subject to the legislature. They expressed a will¬ 
ingness to join in the non-intercourse plan, 
a contemplated southern agreement to use no 
northern manufactures, but they had no faith in 
it as a permanent policy. 2 

1 Mercury, August 7, 1828, report of anti-tariff meeting at Barn¬ 
well; August 9, Orangeburg; August 19, Newberry; September 9, 
Union, Lexington, York, Greenville; October 3, Abbeville; October 7, 
anti-tariff convention of delegates from York, Chester, Lancaster, 
and Fairfield at Chester; October 14, Pendleton; October 15, St. 
James’, Goosecreek; October 22, Darlington. 

2 Mercury, October 3, 1828. 


12 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

In reviewing and indorsing the work of these 
various meetings, the editor of the Mercury drew 
a picture which was surely an exaggeration. He 
contrasted the situation of South Carolina then 
with her condition a few years earlier, and con¬ 
tended that by the tariff South Carolina had 
been transformed from a garden to a wilderness. 1 
For these meetings and complaints, however, the 
participants were censured by “all the presses in 
the pay of the administration, led on and mar¬ 
shalled by the National Intelligencer .” These 

1 Mercury, August 23, 1828: “Many can well remember the time 
when the sails of our commerce whitened every sea; when our 
planters were well remunerated for their labor; when improvements 
were daily adding to the size and beauty of our towns; when industry 
of all kinds was abundantly employed and amply rewarded; and 
when ease and contentment marked the circumstances and reigned 
in the hearts of all classes of our people. But that time has passed, 
and, as we fear, forever. 

“ Government thought proper to interfere in our concerns and has 
succeeded at last, by continued acts of injustice and oppression, in 
blighting the hopes and ruining the prospects of our people. Com¬ 
merce, which once poured its treasures at our feet, is now driven 
from our shores. Agriculture, which amply repaid the labor of our 
planters, now scarcely affords them a bare subsistence. Plantations, 
once the abode of elegance and wealth, have been deserted and 
abandoned. Property, once immensely valuable, has fallen to less 
than half its value. Industry no longer finds employment. Poverty 
and embarrassment universally prevail, and nothing is to be seen or 
heard, from the seaboard to the mountains, but the signs of decay and 
the language of despair. ’ ’ 


The Origin of the Conflict 


T 3 


presses held that the attacks upon the tariff 
act were mere pretexts to cover deep and traitor¬ 
ous designs of the leaders of the Jackson party 
looking to the dissolution of the Union, with a 
view to the erection of a separate empire for 
Andrew Jackson and themselves. The Mercury 
answered, however, that the question was really 
distinct from the presidential issue and that the 
National Intelligencer was trying to make political 
capital out of it to defeat Jackson. 1 The South 
Carolinians evidently regarded the tariff of 1828 
as of greater importance than did many Virginians, 
who looked upon it as simply an aid to the “ manu¬ 
facture of a President of the United States.” 2 

In view of the accusation of the “administra¬ 
tion presses” there arises at once a question as to 
just what modes of resistance were advocated at 
this time. In the first place, there was as yet 
no well-defined, well-organized Disunion or even 
Nullification party. Certain hints at disunion had 
been dropped by a few writers, and the resolutions 
of some of the local meetings had led some of the 
more sensitive patriots to believe that they had 
scented a secret movement which might grow 

1 Mercury, August 23, 1828. 

2 Charles H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie, p. 114. 


14 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

and lead to disunion. But these Union watch¬ 
dogs, who raised the preliminary warning and 
later became leaders of the Union party, were 
now making much more stir than was warranted 
by anything the press disclosed. 

Throughout the year 1828 the Charleston Courier 
bristled with denunciations of anything and 
everything that could be interpreted as tending 
toward disunion. Early in the year “Hamilton” 
published a series of twenty-eight articles in 
answer to Turnbull’s The Crisis , which, with 
kindred publications, “Hamilton” said, had made 
the term “disunion” familiar to the ears of the 
people—a term which he held should never have 
found its way into the political vocabulary, but 
should be forever regarded as of evil omen. 
“Hamilton” denounced these essays as enkindling 
animosity, sowing dissension between the South 
and the North, and weakening the ties that bound 
them together. He did not refer to particular 
expressions, but to the general tone of the essays 
and to the inferences which they suggested. He 
thought it impossible to rise from their perusal 
without the impression that the authors regarded 
the dissolution of the Union as an event, not only 
probable, but hardly to be deprecated. He said 


The Origin of the Conflict 


i5 


that it would not only be impossible ever to 
bring the government back to the principles 
“Brutus” (Turnbull) styled pure, but that it 
would not be desirable if possible, for such a 
government could not last a twelvemonth. Such 
principles could not bind the parts together; the 
very interests and prejudices which, in the view 
of “Brutus,” forbade a closer union were the 
premises on which “Hamilton” relied to demon¬ 
strate its necessity. 1 

The Charleston City Gazette , as early as June 19, 
1828, observed that the “question of disunion” 
was “at last seriously and openly submitted to the 
consideration of the people of South Carolina,” 
and that the people were asked, not only to cal¬ 
culate the advantages of the Union, but to resist 
its laws and dissolve the political bonds which held 
the confederacy together. The editor repeated 
the usual story of South Carolina’s wrongs and 
sufferings in the Union, 2 and added: 

Such is the gloomy picture which is artfully drawn to 
excite popular frenzy to an act of irretrievable desperation. 
A measure of the general government (to say the worst 

1 Charleston Courier, February 12, 1828. This paper will be 
referred to hereafter as the Courier. See Houston, Nullification in 
South Carolina, pp. 49-51, 71-73. 

2 Such as quoted from the Mercury in n. 1, p. 12. 


16 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of it) of doubtful policy is thus worked up into the most 
horrid phantom which can disturb the vision of freemen; 
and over their terrified imagination a demoniac sorcery is 
thus exercised to lead them into crime and to tempt them 
to their destruction. For it would be a crime, unpardon¬ 
able before God and man [to] violate and tear down the 
only true altar which has ever been erected to civil and 
religious liberty; and a desolation wider and more de¬ 
structive than has ever darkened the fortunes of the 
human race would mark and signalize its accomplishment . 1 

The editor admitted that the state had suffered 
somewhat along with the general agricultural 
interests of the South, but he believed that the 
evil would right itself. 

Many men now wrote or spoke against dis¬ 
union. On July 4, at Columbia, Alfred Bynum 
delivered an address which a correspondent said 
did much to stop seditious expressions in that 
part of the state. He reported that never before 
had he seen the tide of party feeling so suddenly 
arrested in its course as by this speech. This he 
insisted was no exaggeration, for at the several 
barbecues not a toast was permitted which had 

1 Charleston City Gazette, June 19, 1828. This paper was a daily. 
The Charleston Carolina Gazette was a weekly edition published by the 
same editors for country circulation. The Charleston City Gazette 
will be referred to hereafter as the Gazette, while the Charleston 
Carolina Gazette will be referred to as the Carolina Gazette. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


i7 


the least savor of disaffection toward the govern¬ 
ment. The efforts of both William C. Preston and 
William Harper to answer Bynum were pro¬ 
nounced failures. 1 

“One of the People,” dating his letter from 
Pineville, now started a series of articles to show 
the dangers of disunion. He said that Colleton, 
Richland, and Abbeville, the districts which had 
been most clamorous on the subject of state rights 
and the federal government’s usurpations, had lost 
sight of the original purpose of the State Rights 
party and had come to think too much of imme¬ 
diate and unconditional separation from the 
Union; they had perverted the state rights 
doctrines and misled the people simply for their 
own selfish ends. 2 Many other writers kept the 
Courier supplied with anti-disunion copy. 3 Some 
of the anti-tariff meetings during the summer had 
features which attracted special attention. For 
example, at the Columbia meeting Professor 
Robert Henry, of South Carolina College, moved 

1 Courier, July 9, 1828. 

2 Courier, July 12, 1828. 

3 In the Courier, on July 22, 1828, “A Citizen of the U.S.” started 
a series of articles. On July 25, “A Southron” appeared. Soon 
“Lowndes” followed, and then many others in August. On August 
28 “Union” began a series. 


18 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


to strike out of the address those parts professing 
love for the Union. For this he was severely 
criticized by many, some of whom said that they 
would cry shame on the legislature if he were 
retained in the college. He had his defenders, 
however, in such papers as the Cheraw Radical . 1 

A letter by David R. Williams, former governor 
of the state, to a committee of citizens of York 
district, attracted attention. He pictured the 
people of Kershaw district as extremely indignant, 
and averred that ninety-nine out of every hundred 
of the people of his congressional district believed 
the tariff unjust to the South and unconstitu¬ 
tional. He could not say as yet what proportion 
would oppose the operation of the law; but he 
feared that a number of young spirits would will¬ 
ingly risk their lives for a military career “if only for 
the fun of it,” though the discreet and sober- 
minded would countenance only such opposition as 
he outlined. He was decidedly against any 
thought of forcible resistance, for he preferred 
to suffer as long as burdens were tolerable rather 
than encounter evils more terrible. He had as 
yet heard of no project which really assured 
relief. He could not see that the legislature could 

1 Courier, August 15, 1828; Carolina Gazette , September 12. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


i9 


better things by taking affairs into its own hands. 
He preferred associations for non-consumption 
of eastern and western articles, and favored 
no project that might tend to dismember the 
Union. 1 Such were the views of the conserva¬ 
tives. 

This was in direct opposition to the sentiment 
of a “large and respectable meeting of the inhab¬ 
itants of Colleton district” at the courthouse 
in Walterboro, on June 12 2 The official ad¬ 
dresses of the meeting to the people of the state 
and to the governor spoke strongly for resistance 
and asked that the governor convene the legisla¬ 
ture at once to consider the situation, or call a 
convention to do so. The editor of the Mercury 
commended this as showing proper disdain for 
anything like a mean evasion of the law; the people 
of Colleton, he was glad to see, would not form 
associations to counteract the tariff law, nor agree¬ 
ments not to use northern manufactures, nor 
would they resort to any step whatever which, 
while it would circumvent the law, would be 
tantamount to an acknowledgment of the right 

1 Courier , August 27, 1828. 

2 This section of the state, the southeast comer, seemed consist¬ 
ently to take an advanced position. The Bluffton movement of 
1844 was another instance. 


20 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


of Congress to enact it and thus tend to fix the 
oppression irrevocably upon the country. He 
praised them for clearly denying the constitution¬ 
ality of the act and recommending distinctly such 
“open resistance” as became “a Sovereign and 
Independent State.” 1 

But the Walterboro meeting was proceeding 
too fast for the rest of the party, or at least faster 
than the other opponents of the tariff thought 
politic. While the Mercury itself later admitted 
this, the Columbia Telescope , which was generally 
understood to be the principal organ of the less 
conservative anti-tariff men of the interior, at 
once disapproved of the proceedings of the 
meeting and declared itself as preferring non¬ 
consumption as a more advisable mode of defeat¬ 
ing the operation of the system. 2 The Winy aw 
Intelligencer , although firmly opposed to the tariff, 
also regretted the proceedings as premature, and 
the Richmond Enquirer , taking the same ground, 
called upon the citizens of Colleton to pause and 
avoid such a program as their enemies were most 
anxious they should adopt. 

As yet the doctrine of nullification was not 
generally indorsed nor even discussed; other 

1 Mercury, June 18, 1828. 2 Mercury, July 4, 1828. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


21 


methods were proposed. These were non¬ 
consumption, the establishment of state excises, 
and the establishment of southern manufactures. 
Each had a few strong advocates, 1 but many 
objections were raised. The Mercury regarded 
the non-consumption plan as equivalent to sub¬ 
mission, and the establishment of southern 
manufactures as absolutely hopeless and only 
calculated to benefit a few individuals without 
effecting anything like general relief. George 
McDuffie was one of those who suggested these 
measures, which were to be made effective by a 
tax on all northern manufactured goods and 
Kentucky live stock after they had been incor¬ 
porated in the property of the state; thus the 
people were to be encouraged to raise all their 
own horses, mules, and cows, and to manufacture 
their own wearing apparel. 2 Some confidently be¬ 
lieved that a successful beginning in manufactur¬ 
ing had already been made in South Carolina. 
“Homespun” left at the Courier office, for the 
inspection of planters, a sample of cotton osna- 
burgs for negro clothing, manufactured by the 
Sotlth Carolina Manufacturing Company at So¬ 
ciety Hill in Darlington district. This company 

1 Courier, August 19, 1828. 2 Mercury, July 4, 18, 1828. 


22 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

also manufactured other sorts of cloth for winter 
or summer clothes for negroes, and cotton bagging, 
“at prices most essentially anti-tariff,” said 
“Homespun.” The writer endeavored to show 
how South Carolina had at her command every 
means for avoiding extravagant duties. 1 Other 
writers recommended the manufacture of cotton¬ 
seed oil and the culture of the vine to help lighten 
the burden of the tariff. During this year and 
the next, noticeable attention was directed to 
agricultural improvements, and announcement 
was made of an agricultural paper which was to 
begin publication on January i, 1830. 2 

While some writers were in sympathy with all 
suggestions and efforts which might enable the 
planters to bear up against the tariff, they con¬ 
tended that the iniquity of protectionism itself 
must never for a moment be forgotten. They 
believed that substitutes and experiments might 
produce temporary alleviation, but that the South 
could never be permanently prosperous until the 
restrictive policy was destroyed. Many writers 
deprecated the plans of non-consumption and 

1 Courier, January 26, 1829. 

2 Mercury, September 23, October, 1829; Courier , November 10. 
The Southern Planter and Practical Agriculturist was to be a monthly 
of 44 or 48 pages. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


2 3 


home manufactures as impossible of enforcement. 
While the Edgefield meeting of July 26 pledged 
its participants not to use northern manufactures 
or live stock, this expedient was viewed as having 
only slight and temporary value. Though faith 
was expressed in the state legislature, a committee 
of five was appointed to correspond with similar 
committees in South Carolina and other southern 
states. Thus a step was early taken to promote 
union of policy in the South. 1 

For most of the disunion talk, so generally 
decried, the “Mercury Junto” was blamed, and 
the men connected with the paper were classed 
together as a dangerous group. Those who 
formed this junto were said to be some “apostate 
republicans ambitious office-holders and hungry 
expectants of office, deluded or wicked men, who 
would sacrifice on the altar of interest their 
dearest rights; “blind partisans of Calhoun, 
McDuffie, Hamilton, etc.”; and “disorganizing 
ultra-federalists,” who were “never so happy as 
when successful in fomenting dissensions among 
the different sections of the United States.” 2 
Strategem as well as disunion purpose was 

1 Mercury, August 4, September 23, 1828. 

2 Gazette, July 26, 1828. 


24 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


attributed to the junto. Though not one of the 
“big leaders” had declared openly for separation, 
these cunning old politicians, it was said, had 
allowed a few of the very young men to speak 
for it; these young men were sent forth from the 
citadel of sedition, like little dogs, whose barking, 
if it aroused the citizens, should be the signal 
to the wary soldiers within to raise the Union 
standard and avert the impending attack. When 
public opinion was seen to be strongly Unionist, 
the Mercury, the organ of the Disunion party, 
protested against being called the advocate of 
disunion. “Thus,” said the Gazette, “although 
we have stripped from the Mercury party the mask 
of virtue with which it would have concealed 
its treachery, we are yet unable to name the per¬ 
sons who would dismember the Union. The light 
of day shines not upon them; poor, cowardly 
assassins, they stab only in the dark.” 1 

Such accusations were based purely upon sus¬ 
picion. The accusers had to admit that their 
charges could not be substantiated by positive 
citations. In May the Mercury had advised 
caution and careful consideration before action. 
In June it had approved the suggestion of the 

1 Gazette, July 26, August 1,1828. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


25 


Walterboro meeting, that the legislature or a 
convention be asked to take steps toward such 
“open resistance” as became a “Sovereign and 
Independent State”; but in July it interpreted 
this to be simply a forceful declaration that the 
tariff act was unconstitutional and must be 
repealed; that the rights of the southern states 
had been destroyed and must be restored; that 
the Union was “in danger, and must be saved.” 1 
Surely there was no earnest advocacy of disunion 
in that; it merely suggested disunion as a possi¬ 
bility if the tariff system were not altered, and 
the suggestion was offered more for moral effect 
than with any immediate purpose. 

As yet there were no clearly defined party lines 
throughout the state, as there came to be later 
when the State Rights party and the Union 
party were definitely organized. At this time, 
in the summer and fall of 1828, the main body of 
the people were just beginning to be aroused 
to the point where they were ready to contem¬ 
plate other methods than resolutions against the 
tariff. 

The hostility between the two factions kept 
increasing, however, and the leaders of the 

1 Mercury, May 29, June 18, July 4, 1828. 


26 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

conservatives were especially severe in their 
accusations and denunciations of the radicals, 
whom they styled Disunionists. In Edgefield 
district the Disunionists seem to have boycotted 
the Edgefield Hive, edited by Dr. A. Landrum. 
This action the Charleston Gazette declared to be 
simply typical of the policy of coercion pursued 
by that party in both the upper and the lower 
country, to force into the views of “the wild and 
heated demagogues of the day ’’ all who would not 
“throw up the cap and hurrah for disunion.” 
This editor continued his fight against the 
“traitors” who worked in secret to destroy the 
Union, and hoped that ere long they would be 
dragged forth and exposed. By the last of August 
he noticed that the gang of professional office- 
hunters connected with the junto, seeing that the 
idea of disunion was not becoming popular, began 
to talk more for the Union side, in order to get 
elected. He favored putting the clique out of 
office and electing industrious, sober-minded 
citizens. 1 

Not only were the majority of the people 
strongly against disunion at this time, but some 
were even pro-tariff in sentiment. A series of 

1 Gazette, August u, 26, 30, 1828. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


27 


articles in the Courier , signed by “A Native/’ 1 
denounced the talk of disunion and expressed 
alarm at the meetings which asked that the legis¬ 
lature or a convention do something, for the 
author believed that revolutionary purposes were 
in contemplation. He held that a certain set of 
men was bent upon separation from the Union 
and was using the tariff controversy as a cloak. 
Though he claimed not to be a tariff man, he 
showed himself a thoroughgoing one. He tried 
to show that the South and South Carolina were 
not subjected to all the intolerable load of injury 
and injustice which had been urged as the motive 
for separation. The subject of the tariff had 
unfortunately become very much involved; what 
with pamphlets, speeches, memorials, reports, and 
resolutions, the mass of argument had become 
so enormous that men were taking their opinions 
at second hand; they would rather expose them¬ 
selves to error and imposition than undertake 
the intolerable work of wading through such 
oceans of ink. He attempted a simple statement 
of the case. 

“A Native” did not deny the right of revolu¬ 
tion, but presented its dangers and seriousness, 

1 Seventeen in all, beginning on June 5 and ending on July 18,1828. 


28 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

and held that just cause for its exercise did not 
exist. He then proceeded to show the fallacy of 
the contention that the tariff operated so as to 
levy on one part of the community a tribute to be 
bestowed as a bounty on another. To him the 
idea of regarding it as a tribute levied by a few, 
the manufacturers, upon the many, the consumers, 
was absurd, and the calculations by which the 
consumers of goods not actually imported were 
shown to be tributary to the manufacturers in 
proportion to the amount of the duty that would 
be paid on the goods if imported seemed to him 
theoretical folly contradicted by the clearest 
practical proof. The tariff was not an arbitrary, 
uncalled-for interference of the government, but 
an institution arising from a combination of cir¬ 
cumstances which could not be well overlooked 
by a vigilant and paternal government striving to 
assist the laudable aims of one part of the 
community without imposing any sacrifice upon 
another. Neither would it in its remote, any 
more than in its immediate, effects result in injus¬ 
tice or oppression to the consumers of the South. 
There were certain classes in the North whom it 
would affect indeed far more than it would the 
South. As for the southern agriculturists, the 


The Origin of the Conflict 


29 


writer endeavored to prove that to them the 
tariff act was a benefit. The effect of the tariff 
upon prices, the writer held, was incapable of 
calculation, but he contended that it only steadied 
prices at the outset, and invariably resulted in a 
reduction ultimately, as had been established by 
experience everywhere. The aid of a reasonable 
tariff to support manufacturers in the competition 
to supply a pre-occupied market was indispensable, 
he argued, and in the end would fully indemnify 
the consumers, for it contained in itself a counter¬ 
acting influence, which, by exciting competition, 
secured the community against increase of price, 
and furnished an indemnity by communicating 
a value to labor of every description. Beyond 
all question the power of Congress had been con¬ 
stitutionally exercised in this instance. 

This was typical of a number of pro-tariff 
arguments, 1 of more or less merit, all of which were 
characterized by writers in the Mercury as any¬ 
thing but convincing. 2 

A planter near Augusta, who saw at least 
one phase of the situation clearly, wrote that 

1 In the Gazette, on August 18, 1828, “Prudence” started a series. 

2 Mercury, June 11, 1828. “The Astonished Natives” declared 
that “A Native” had soon “got into thick darkness from which no 
light could be seen.” 


30 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

he thought that the noise about the tariff would 
all end in smoke, for the people would soon learn 
that they could get their coarse clothing cheaper 
that year than the year before. He wrote: 

I have bought my negro clothing and shoes io per 
cent lower this than last year, and 60 per cent less than 
when I imported the former direct from England a few 
years ago; and the fabric is at least io per cent better in 
wearing. And, besides, what has our tariff to do with the 
fall in price of all the cottons raised in other parts of the 
world ? It is all madness and folly. The whole secret 
is, we raise too much of it and ought to turn our attention 
to something more promising and productive. 

This was apparently the theory of the Courier 
editor also. 1 

There were champions, not only of the tariff, 
but of federal internal improvements also. “One 
of the People” said he did not believe that all 
the people of the state were strongly opposed to 
internal improvements directed by the general 
government, despite the fact that the South 
Carolina representatives in Congress had declared 
against this function, for the planters of the interior 
sorely needed means of communication and had 
been shamefully neglected. 2 

1 Courier, September 30, 1828; see also Houston, Nullification in 
South Carolina, chap. iii. 

2 Courier, June 18, 1828. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


3 1 


As already hinted, such disunion advocacy as 
was expressed attracted little attention in the 
North, save as it made capital in the presidential 
contest. The National Intelligencer held that the 
attempts in the South to bring about a separation 
of the Union originated with, and were promoted 
by, the friends of General Jackson; that the 
Jackson party was a dangerous one, because 
Jackson’s election would result in the destruction of 
the confederacy. The Mercury denounced this as 
a mean artifice to help John Quincy Adams, and, 
after disavowing disunion, gave Jackson warm 
praise, in sharp contrast with its bitter censures 
a few years later. 

If there is a man in the United States whose whole 
soul is devoted to his country, and who would esteem no 
sacrifice too great for the preservation of her liberty, 

that man is Andrew Jackson.If any individual 

can preserve the Union; if any one man can compose 
the agitated waves which threaten to engulf us, he is 
that man. To him the people look emphatically as their 
last, sole hope. 1 

The Adams administration, however, was not 
without its friends. The Courier and the Gazette 
were both Adams papers. The friends of the 

1 Mercury, June 27, August 6, 1828. 


32 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


administration in various parts of the state ven¬ 
tured to hold a few meetings during the year, but 
the fall elections showed that not only Charleston, 
but the state at large, was overwhelmingly for 
Jackson. In Charleston the administration party 
made a desperate fight, but while the highest 
vote for a Jackson man elected as representative 
to the state legislature was 1,510, and the lowest 
number of votes for a winning candidate was 
1,096, the highest vote for an administration 
candidate was 706. 

In denying that it was a Disunion sheet, the 
Mercury always made the point that it sought 
merely to bring the Union back to the constitu¬ 
tional basis, and that if the Union were ever 
broken the blame would be on the North—with 
those who trampled the Constitution under foot 
and who, forgetting that the states of the South 
were coequal sovereignties with the others, seemed 
determined to exploit them as colonies at their 
own discretion and pleasure. In September, when 
it was seen that the state was decidedly against 
disunionism in any phase, the Mercury announced 
that the South did not really think of disunion, 
but that the real issue was simply as to how 
the violations of the Constitution were to be 


The Origin of the Conflict 


33 


remedied and how Congress could be induced to 
abandon forever the doctrine of implied powers. 1 

As a matter of fact, very few if any of the small 
number of men who did talk disunion actually 
contemplated a recourse to it. And even those 
few saw that they must hide behind at least a 
pretendedly peaceable remedy, and one with 
little apparent implication of disunion. Nulli¬ 
fication would serve. 

The doctrine of nullification was brought to 
conspicuous notice by James Hamilton, Jr., at 
a Walterboro gathering, on October 12, 1828. 
“Our reliance, then, is on the Virginia and Ken¬ 
tucky Resolutions of ’98 — and upon these we 
put our citadel where no man can harm it.” 
Nullification, he said, might be applied by the 
state either through its legislature or by a con¬ 
vention of the people in their sovereignty, and 
need not result in a dissolution of the Union, unless 
that was willed by their opponents. If the tariff 
were declared null and void within South Carolina, 
one of three courses would be open to the general 
government: first, to submit to this mode of 
redress, by leaving the people of South Carolina 
to themselves, with a hope that solitude would 

1 Mercury, September 3, 1828. 


34 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

bring repentance and submission; secondly, to 
appeal to a convention of the states and thereby 
obtain a decision on the constitutional question; 
or, thirdly, to use direct coercion with the bayonet. 
As to the first, consideration of the commercial 
tribute South Carolina was paying would pre¬ 
vent its use. The third would destroy the Union 
and was but a wild speculation, unworthy of 
serious thought. The second was, he believed, 
the remedy which would be applied. If three- 
fourths of the states should decide for the tariff, 
then South Carolina, resting on her sovereignty, 
could decide whether to join a confederacy in 
which the prohibitory system was sanctioned 
by the very Constitution of the Union. But 
he confidently believed that the tariff would be 
rejected and that a purified Constitution would 
be the result. 1 

Many looked eagerly to the session of the 
state legislature to point out the way for the 
state. These were doomed to disappointment. 
In 1824 Judge Samuel Prioleau, as chairman of a 
committee to which was referred the part of 

1 Speech of James Hamilton, Jr., at Walterboro, on October 21, 
1828, at a public dinner given to him by his constituents of Colleton 
district (pamphlet). 


The Origin of the Conflict 


35 


Governor John L. Wilson’s message touching 
the usurpations of Congress in the matters of 
internal improvements, protective tariffs, and the 
United States Bank, had reported that the legis¬ 
lature had no right to interfere with the legislation 
of Congress. Many prominent members took this 
view, but at the next session Judge William Smith 
brought forward resolutions, which were adopted, 
declaring that a state legislature had the right to 
watch over the proceedings of Congress, express 
opinions thereon, and remonstrate against such 
legislation as it disapproved. This it proceeded to 
do, and the same course was pursued in 1827. This 
was the doctrine of state rights as then understood. 

When the legislature met in November, 1828, 
the subject of chief interest was of course the 
tariff, and parties were beginning to form with 
regard to future action by the state. Virtually 
all were opposed to the tariff, but there were 
wide differences as to the mode and measure 
of redress. There were the moderates and the 
radicals; Hugh S. Legare was a prominent leader 
of the former, and Chancellor William Harper of 
the latter. During two weeks of discussion in 
the legislature a number of resolutions were offered 
and all referred to a committee. In the meantime 


36 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Colonel William C. Preston asked John C. Cal¬ 
houn to write a report for adoption by the legis¬ 
lature. Calhoun wrote this report, and it was 
sent to the committee and reported by it to the 
House for adoption. The legislature was not 
ready to adopt the report, which was the very 
embodiment of nullification disguised by a great 
deal of metaphysical ingenuity, but it adopted 
instead a set of relatively tame resolutions, and 
ordered the report to be printed. These reso¬ 
lutions declared that the tariff acts were uncon¬ 
stitutional and should be resisted, and invited the 
other states to co-operate with South Carolina 
in resistance. The resolutions were sent to the 
several southern governors to be submitted to 
the state legislatures. Many erroneously took 
the policy of the Exposition to be that officially 
approved by the legislature. The authorship of 
the Exposition was anonymous; Calhoun was as 
yet behind the scenes, and was not to appear 
openly as an actor in the nullification episode 
until he was later forced to do so. 1 

During the next year, 1829, the state was much 
less agitated over the tariff, because early in the 

1 Mercury, December 23, 1828; Gazette , July 1, 1831; B. F. 
Perry, Reminiscences and Speeches. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


37 


year it seemed that the South Carolina protest 
would at last be received in Washington with 
proper attention. Indeed, there appeared to be 
much opposition to the tariff act even in the 
North. 1 The editors in the state, even the most 
vehement ones, must have felt no little confidence 
that Jackson and Congress would reduce the tariff 
at the coming session; for, during the summer and 
fall, up to the time of the opening of Congress, the 
press was noticeably silent on the subject. 2 This 
must not be interpreted to mean that the people of 
the state, unanimously confident, were simply 
waiting patiently for Congress to meet and re¬ 
dress their every grievance. There were quite 
audible scattered grumblings. At the Walterboro 
celebration on the Fourth of July the toasts 
again reflected an ardent desire for resistance; 
one denounced the legislature of 1828 as having 
given a stone to the people when they were ask¬ 
ing for bread. The Columbia Telescope did not 

1 Courier, February n, 1829. 

2 Many men believed, as James H. Hammond said in his July 4 
address at Columbia, that “the Powers that presided in our day of 
darkness are no longer lords of the ascendant. Another star has 
risen and there are streaks of light already visible in the horizon 
which augur the dawn of a new and bright day. The night will pass 
away”; its memory, he said, would serve as a warning against future 
attempts at usurpation (James H. Hammond, Papers). 


38 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

rest so quietly on its oars as did other papers of 
the state, and in its comments on the Independence 
Day celebration took occasion to remark that the 
government since its establishment had changed 
very materially for the worse. 1 

The Telescope now studiously answered the 
northern papers which were attacking South 
Carolina with charges of “Treason, Rebellion, 
Disunion, Blood, Carnage, Etc.,” and admitted 
with Thomas Jefferson that even disunion was not 
the greatest scourge which could afflict the nation, 
and that whenever the original terms and pur¬ 
poses of the Union had been essentially and 
permanently changed (which condition, it strongly 
hinted at various times, was at hand), it could 
no longer be desirable to any sensible, honest, 
or patriotic man. A little later this editor argued 
that disunion would not be so disastrous to the 
South as pictured by some, 2 and accused the 
Edgefield Carolinian , and the whole community 
thereabout, of being too nationalistic in their 

1 Columbia Telescope, July 10, 1829. This paper will be referred 
to hereafter as the Telescope. 

2 He declared that the South could go out, as far as the results of 
disunion were concerned, with security; but that he was not anxious 
for disunion, unless driven to it; that it was to be preferred, however, 
to further submission to the tariff and internal improvements — the 
American system. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


39 


views and not strong enough supporters of state 
sovereignty and state rights. 1 

The Telescope thus, contrary to the prevailing 
attitude of the state and that of the Disunion 
party, advanced from a moderate anti-tariff 
position to an open advocacy of the disunion 
doctrine in theory, and an announcement that it 
would be ready to follow that doctrine in practice 
if matters were not speedily righted. While there 
were a few tilts in that year over the question 

1 Telescope, September 4, October 16, November 6, 20,1829. This 
charge was called forth by an article in the Edgefield Carolinian calling 
Dr. Thomas Cooper a “foreigner” and dangerous radical, and 
saying that his speech in July, 1827, in which he said that it was time 
for the South to calculate the advantages of the Union, was a senti¬ 
ment uttered at an improper time by an improper person, and that it 
had been injurious to the cause of the South. The Carolinian said: 
“It certainly enabled those enlisted against our rights to appeal 
with great success to the prejudices of the people in favor of the 
Union, before they had been sufficiently enlightened as to the 
outrageous oppression practiced upon them. It was argued with 
great adroitness and effect that the opposition to the tariff was a mere 
scheme of some of the southern politicians to gratify their ambition 
in obtaining that power which would be inaccessible while we main¬ 
tained our political relations with the other portions of the country. 
We are as well satisfied as we can be of any fact from observation, 
that the friends of spirited resistance to the tariff have had to en¬ 
counter no obstacle more embarrassing than the revulsion of feeling 
produced by the indiscreet violence of Dr. Cooper and some of his 
confederates. Love for the Union is too deeply seated in the Ameri¬ 
can bosom to be lightly shaken by any reasoning on its pecuniary 
advantages.” 


40 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


of disunion, 1 there was a decided lull on the issue 
throughout the state. 

Toward the end of the year, as the time 
approached for the assembling of the state legis¬ 
lature and of Congress, it was, in view of what 
some expected from the latter, a pertinent ques¬ 
tion what action the former should take. Early 
in the year, in its first issue, the Greenville Moun¬ 
taineer 2 had thoroughly indorsed the course of the 
last session of the legislature as the only one for 
South Carolina to pursue, for it believed that 
there was no step between the one already taken— 
legislative protest—and open, unqualified resist¬ 
ance. The plan of non-consumption of all prod¬ 
ucts which were either grown or manufactured in 
the tariff states was approved as the only proper 
mode of resistance, however feeble it might be. 

As the time approached, other suggestions 
were ventured. Two writers in a Columbia 
paper differed as to what they considered the 
proper policy. “Lowndes” felt, in view of the 
forbearance of the state in the past, when there 

1 Courier, August 4, 1829, “A Carolinian”; October 15, “Anti- 
Cato”; Gazette, September 17, “Union”; August 4, “Caution.” 

2 Greenville Mountaineer, January 10, 1829. This paper, soon to 
prove itself a strong Union paper, will be referred to hereafter as the 
Mountaineer. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


4i 


was not a single ray of hope for help from Congress, 
that it would be folly for the legislature to take 
a positive stand now, just at the time when there 
was a prospect, even though a slight one, of justice. 
He favored an adjourned meeting of the legislature 
to be called after Congress had acted. The com¬ 
ing session of Congress would decide the ques¬ 
tion forever; if the decision went against the 
South, then the only alternatives would be for 
the legislature to declare a peaceable secession or 
declare the unconstitutional laws a nullity not to 
be obeyed. 

The other writer, “State Rights,” could see 
in such a course nothing better than the “wordy 
warfare,” bordering upon the ridiculous, which 
the legislature, as “Lowndes” admitted, had kept 
up for the last five or six years. He would 
have the legislature demand of Congress the 
calling of a convention of the states. “Lowndes” 
pronounced this nothing short of chimerical for 
if the South was unable to get a simple majority 
of Congress for the repeal of the obnoxious laws, 
it was more than obvious to him that it need never 
think of relief by means of so complicated and 
tedious a way as a convention, even though that 
was an essential feature in the plan of the author 


42 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of the Exposition. The editor himself simply 
remarked that whether the next legislature 
would talk and talk and deal in rhetorical flour¬ 
ishes, as the last had done, until the members 
bewildered themselves and disgusted their hearers, 
he knew not, but he firmly believed that no 
good would be done. 1 

In this period of waiting some predicted that if 
Congress should persist in its past course it would 
find that, even though there were apparently 
now a moderate and a violent party, the line 
between them was either faint or undiscernible ; 2 
others raised their voices in warning against the 
dangers of petty jealousies, local prejudices, 
selfish interests, apathy, timidity, or anything 
that would cause division before the enemy. 3 
But, in spite of such opinions and warnings, 
South Carolina was by no means a unit even as to 
the doctrine of state rights. Quite a number 
of men in the state were more or less nationalistic 
in their political leanings, and, among those who 
were reckoned adherents of a pure state-rights 
belief there were many who, deep in their hearts, 

1 Telescope, October 9, 30, 1829. 

2 Mercury, August 6, 1829. 

3 Telescope, October 30, 1829; Hammond Papers: Hammond’s 
July 4 address. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


43 


did not believe in that doctrine implicitly, but 
supported it because they thought it the best for the 
state and the South under the circumstances. 

An excellent example of this class was an am¬ 
bitious, earnest young lawyer, striving to convince 
himself honestly, by close study, as to the true 
status of political affairs. He wrote to an intimate 
friend 1 that he had read much and thought more 
on politics during the past year than he was will¬ 
ing to acknowledge, since he should have devoted 
his time chiefly to law. The result of his reading 
and reflection had been first to throw him into the 
ranks of those who thought the strict and liberal 
constructionists both went too far, and that the 
true constitutional ground lay somewhere between 
them. But, in spite of his conviction, he had 
gained another, a sad one: that it was to the 
interest of the South to cling to state rights. 
Therefore he was a state-rights man and believed 
that the state should prepare to act according to 
the implications of that doctrine. Any one of 
the respectable class who believed as this honest 
young citizen did, but in whom the latter con¬ 
viction, that it was to the interest of the South to 

1 Hammond Papers: T. W. Brevard to J. H. Hammond, October 
n, 1829. 


44 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

cling to state rights, even to the literal and logical 
conclusions of that doctrine, was not sufficiently 
strong, would not throw his hat into the ring until 
more thoroughly convinced that it was necessary 
as a last and only measure. 

When the legislature—with which some in the 
state were disgusted, but to which many still con¬ 
fided their hope for the future—met on the last 
Monday in November, it spent much time in 
lively debate on the question of federal relations, 
and ended by adopting another set of resolutions 
which in reality went little if at all farther than 
the previous ones. The usurpations of the general 
government were solemnly deliberated upon, 
and in the House were referred to a special com¬ 
mittee of seven 1 upon “Relations with the General 
Government,’’ which was the precursor of a stand¬ 
ing committee upon the same matter in later 
years, known as the “Committee on Federal 
Relations.” This committee recommended a 
preamble and resolutions which the House adopted 
after slightly amending them. 

They expressed confidence in the President and 
his inaugural promises in all particulars except as 
to the tariff; they declared that a mere modifica- 

1 Composed of Preston, Gregg, Elliott, Hayne, Smith, Toomer, 
and Wardlaw. 


The Origin of the Conflict 


45 


tion of the tariff of 1828 without a rehnquishment 
of the principles on which it was founded would 
not satisfy South Carolina; that they would not 
express any fears now that Congress would not 
do justice in that regard, but “relying on the 
firmness and energies of the state,” they would 
simply “wait for the proceedings of Congress to 
show whether the constitutional confederacy had 
been overthrown by a combination of interested 
majorities against which there was no conservative 
power but that which resided in the states as 
sovereigns.” They recommended that the gover¬ 
nor open a correspondence with the South Carolina 
delegation in Congress and concert such measures 
with them, during the recess of the legislature, as 
the events of the present Congress might make 
necessary; they expressed high confidence in the 
zeal, firmness, and discretion of the governor and 
the delegation in Congress, but asked that such 
measures as they might decide upon as best be 
laid before the legislature or the people. Although 
they did nothing now, it seemed to be agreed in 
the debates that, if nothing had then been done 
by 1831 to redress southern grievances, 1 the state 
should then take action. 

1 Telescope, December 24, 1829; Courier, December 7; Mercury, 
December 21. 


CHAPTER II 


NULLIFICATION ADVOCATED AND 
DENOUNCED (1830) 

There were few citizens of South Carolina who 
did not feel some degree of hope that the session 
of Congress which began in December of 1829 
would reform the tariff in a manner satisfactory 
to the South. But as the months of the session 
passed without action, the conviction rapidly 
spread that the congressional prospect was hope¬ 
less. A report of the House Committee on Man¬ 
ufactures very early declared it inexpedient to 
make any alteration whatever in the existing 
protective system. But the question was not to 
be thus easily dropped. Proposals of change were 
submitted, and in the debates George McDuffie, 
of South Carolina, was a brilliant advocate of 
tariff reduction. He offered a bill which would 
in two years have reduced the duties upon all the 
prime necessities of life, including woolen and 
cotton goods, iron, etc., to the standard of the tariff 
of 1816. But even the genius of a McDuffie was 
without force against what seemed to be the grasp- 

46 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 47 

ing hand of avarice. His bill was laid upon the 
table by a decisive vote. 1 The bill which was 
finally passed, based largely upon the Mallory 
bill of the House Committee on Manufactures, 
met with little favor in South Carolina. 2 

After the receipt of the first report in which the 
House committee declared itself adverse to any 
change, one paper after another in South Carolina 
began to urge that the state should be “anchored 
on her own energies” and “rely upon her own 
virtues.” The report seemed to say that a system 
of consolidation would be fixed upon them, 
under which the southern states, taxed and 
oppressed for the benefit of the manufacturers, 
could not fail to sink into a deplorable state of 
poverty and degradation, unless! — unless they 
asserted their rights and strove for redress “by 
exercise of their own energies as sovereign states.” 3 
It is worthy of notice that during these months the 

1 Congressional Debates, Vol. VI, Part I, pp. 555, 556. 

2 Mercury, February 16, 1830; Telescope, May 7; Congressional 
Debates, Vol. VI, Parts I and II. 

3 Telescope, January 15, 1830; Mercury, January 13, February 16. 
Thenceforward these papers daily recited the wrongs which the 
whole governmental system inflicted upon the South, and asked 
whether the states would submit or whether they would not prove 
themselves worthy of the Revolutionary legacy of liberty. The 
Mercury, May 1, 1830, contains a typical editorial. 


48 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

appeals were largely to the South as a whole, 
and that the talk of action was largely in vague 
phrases. The appeal for definite state action 
came later. 

When the Mallory bill appeared, the main fea¬ 
tures of which seemed destined to be retained, it 
was despised, both for its rates and for its obstruct¬ 
ive machinery. 1 The bill as finally passed by 
Congress did have in it what many South Caro¬ 
linians interpreted as a pretense at conciliation of 
southern demands; but this was soon shown in its 
true light by the press of the state, and by all but 
a few was distinctly rejected as a concession. The 
duties on tea, coffee, salt, and molasses were either 
materially reduced or removed; but the pro¬ 
tection of manufactures was retained. The ma¬ 
jority of the papers of the state soon pointed out 
that the North was not concerned in growing any 
of these articles; it was concerned, like the South, 
only in consuming them. It was, therefore, 
highly beneficial to the northerners to have light 
duties on these comforts of life. They were, no 

1 Telescope, February 12, May 14, 1830; Camden Journal, May 8 
(this paper will be referred to hereafter as the Journal ); Pendleton 
Messenger, August 4 (this paper will be referred to hereafter as the 
Messenger)', Charleston Southern Patriot, August (this paper will be 
referred to hereafter as the Patriot). 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 49 


doubt, willing to go on in this way until every 
cent which they contributed toward the support 
of the government should be taken off and the 
South left to pay the expenses of government and 
support the northern manufactories besides. 1 
When this so-called trick was exposed, others, 
formerly hopeful, joined the ranks of those who 
believed that not a shade of hope remained for the 
South. Whatever would be done would be “in 
further insult or injury to the despised Planta¬ 
tions” and in further violation of the “prostituted 
parchment” which they “called in mockery a 
constitution.” 2 Some of these joined the ranks 
of the bold and asked how long such things were 
to be borne. Could a sovereign state, having in 
herself the undoubted means of redress, “with 
worse than womanish weakness” forbear to use 
them ? Had her citizens who did so the hearts 
of men ? The doctrine of state rights must be 
their sole safety, and many rejoiced at the spread 
of this doctrine as a result of the Webster-Hayne 
debate. 3 

1 Mercury, May 29, 1830; Greenville Mountaineer, May 7. 

2 Columbia Southern Times, May 17, 20, 1830. (This paper will 
be referred to hereafter as the Times.) 

3 Times, May 20, June 10, 14, 1830; Telescope, July 2. The 
Webster-Hayne debate is further treated below, p. 64. 


50 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

There were some, however, who viewed the 
action of Congress as a promise of a better pro¬ 
gram for the future. 1 The Courier was even 
accused of trying to show the tariff to be not an 
evil to the South, but a positive good. 2 There 
were also some few in the state who were said, with 
some degree of truth, to be ready to sacrifice the 
principle for which the state stood as regarded 
internal improvements. 3 The tariff defenders 

1 Pendleton Messenger, March 24, August 25, 1S30; Greenville 
Mountaineer, June 11. 

2 Mercury, May 15, 1830. The Mercury pronounced this an insult 
to the people; true, some prices were lower than they had been before 
the tariff was fixed, but this was in spite of the tariff, and they would 
have been still lower without it. The fall in prices had been general, 
affecting articles unprotected and protected alike, and was due to the 
substitution of a sound for a depreciated currency, to machinery 
improvements, etc.; prices would have been still lower but for the 
tariff. 

3 The directors of the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Com¬ 
pany petitioned Congress to purchase some of its stock. This was 
at once regarded with alarm by many who believed that it would 
imperil the honor, rights, and dignity of the state, and who were even 
then protesting against the power of the general government in 
relation to internal improvements ( Courier , March 5, 1829). Accord¬ 
ingly, on December 2, 1829, the House of the state legislature voted 
resolutions requesting the South Carolina congressmen to oppose 
any such appropriations for internal improvements ( Courier, Decem¬ 
ber 7, 1829). On January 1, 1830, a railroad meeting was held in 
Charleston which passed resolutions inviting Congress to take stock in 
the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company and a committee 
was appointed to memorialize Congress and ask the South Carolina 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 51 

cited, as a precedent worthy of following, the 
stand taken by South Carolina statesmen in 1816. 1 
The anti-tariff South Carolinians of 1830, however, 
excused these men of 1816 on the ground that they 
had voted for the tariff distinctly as a temporary 
measure, to be reduced to 20 per cent in three 

congressmen, and their representative, Colonel William Drayton, in 
particular, to support the memorial {Mercury, January 4, 1830; 
Courier, January 4). The congressmen were thus placed between 
two fires, as the state legislature had asked them to discourage this 
step. The Charleston meeting was said to have been an open meet¬ 
ing, previously announced, attended by some 820, and engineered 
by no previous organization (1 Courier, January 4, 1830). The 
Mercury tried to show, however, that it was the work of an interested 
faction, and such was in part probably the case. 

Both the Courier and the Patriot (February 3 and January 21, 
1830, respectively) held that, though Congress did not possess the 
constitutional power to execute a general system of internal improve¬ 
ments, it might, as in this case, invest the national funds in a manner 
that did not in any manner affect the sovereign and reserved rights 
of the states. The New York American thought this distinction more 
specious than real. The Patriot argued that this was not an infringe¬ 
ment on state sovereignty, though the construction of a general 
system by the central government without the consent of the states 
would be; and, more to the point, that this was a mode by which 
South Carolina might get some benefits from the system if Congress 
were to persist in it. 

A letter was sent to Drayton by the Charleston committee, 
requesting him to support the memorial in which Congress was asked 
to buy stock in the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company. 
He replied that he could not do so, because he did not believe such a 


1 Patriot, March 3, 1830. 



52 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

years, and as a special concession to the manu¬ 
facturers to allow them to withdraw their capital 
with little loss. But the manufacturers had be¬ 
trayed the trust of the South Carolina delegation 
by applying for an extension of the system, 
unsuccessfully in 1820, but successfully in 1824. 
James Hamilton, Jr., now published his famous 

course on the part of Congress a constitutional one. The argu¬ 
ments usually presented to impute such power to Congress he con¬ 
sidered mere sophistry. The Mercury strongly approved Drayton’s 
course ( Mercury, January 26, 27, 1830). 

This episode attracted considerable attention. The northern 
papers seemed to interpret it as an indication that Charleston was 
switching principles altogether. The Mercury, however, said that 
those who approved were merely the same ones who had long been for 
a tariff and for internal improvements, together with a few who, 
though honest opponents of the tariff and internal improvements, 
thought that Congress could constitutionally invest the public 
funds in the stock of private companies, and who, lamenting the 
depression of the city and state, thought it desirable that an effort 
be made to revive them by such an investment in the sotek of the 
South Carolina company ( Mercury, January 27, 1830). General 
Robert Y. Hayne came out, in a letter made public (Columbia 
Southern Times, February 8), to show that this was sacrificing all 
principle, and a meeting at Walterboro, always in the van, de¬ 
nounced the petition of the company as destitute of propriety and 
expediency and unworthy of being countenanced by the citizens of 
South Carolina ( Mercury, February 17). It was not that they opposed 
the railroad, but that the state was engaged in a struggle for political 
liberties, the successful issue of which was endangered by such a 
petition. It seemed to be a case of trying to eat one’s cake and 
have it too. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 53 


confession that in 1821 he was laboring under “an 
honest but blind delusion” in advocating the 
exercise by Congress of powers which he had since 
come to see were ruinous to South Carolina. 
He added that he was not alone in this change 
of sentiment between 1821 and 1830, but that 
nineteen-twentieths of South Carolina citizens 
had also thus changed. 1 

Although the South Carolina Exposition came 
out during the legislative session of 1828, the 
following year, as has been shown, was one of lull. 
During and after the session of Congress, which 
sat through the first part of 1830 without giving 
satisfactory relief, many went back to the nulli¬ 
fication doctrine and from that time on a number 
of leaders urged that it be carried to the point of 
action. At first the doctrine suffered because of 
the disunion imputation, and soon the main object 
of the nullification advocates became the removal 
of the disunion stigma. 

In this period of educating the people as to the 
merits of nullification, one of the writers who early 
in the year attracted considerable attention was 
“Hampden.” This writer was Francis W. Pickens, 

1 Courier, August 23, 1830; see Houston, Nullification in South 
Carolina, chap. i. 


54 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of Edgefield, a statesman of no mean ability. 1 
“ Hampden ” as a literary character became widely 
known, but his identity was long kept a secret. 2 
These articles appeared first in the Edgefield 
Carolinian , but were copied by other papers in the 
state. 3 But as yet only the more courageous 


1 Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, March 8, 1830. 

3 Hammond Papers: Eldred Simkins, Sr., to Hammond, March, 
1830, shows htnv much some men wrote for the press over assumed 
names, and how well the secret as to the identity of these men 
was kept. 

3 Columbia Southern Times, May 13, 1830. In a letter to Ham¬ 
mond, editor of the Times (Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, 
March 8, 1830), asking him to publish the articles, Pickens showed 
clearly how deeply he felt the importance of the situation. He said 
in part: “I have thought long and intensely on these subjects; 
I write not in haste or in passion, but in cool reflection and fixed 
determination. I have .... investigated my conclusions and I 
write to enlighten those who have not the means of knowing, as 
well as to excite those who know and feel not. I think it idle to 
attempt to rouse a community to act before you inform them where 

they are and what they stand on.I am for decided action. I 

love the Union and think it can only be preserved by an open, 
fearless, and manly course in the state as a sovereign in this con¬ 
federacy.I have no motive in making the present request 

of you, or in writing those numbers, but to advance the rights and 
indicate the wrongs of my degraded and oppressed country. I 
feel as an injured freeman and hope that the community may feel the 
same.” He said that he would have sent the numbers to Hammond 
first, had he not feared that the local editors would take it as a deser¬ 
tion of their paper if they suspected the authorship; furthermore, 
“there had been so much written on the subject in Columbia that 
the people might begin to think that it was only the community about 
that place who entertained sentiments and feelings similar to those 
embodied in the numbers.” 




Nullification Advocated and Denounced 


55 


would openly and actively support the nullification 
theory. Pickens agreed with Hammond 1 that the 
people were not as advanced in position as were 
many of the leaders, particularly in their stand 
on disunion as a possible ultimate necessity; 
to educate the people up to this final point, 
Pickens wrote the “Hampden” numbers. But 
at the same time he believed that a great body of 
the intelligent citizens were far ahead of some of 
the would-be leaders, lawyers particularly, who 
would not risk the loss of popular favor by associat¬ 
ing themselves with the tenet of disunion. When 
the people showed signs of being ready for it, these 
petty leaders would be in the van; but they would 
not declare themselves thus early, when their 
leadership would count for most. For such men 
he had only contempt, and he predicted that 
they would inevitably be lost “in the great 
struggle that must sooner or later agitate this 
country deeper than it has ever yet anticipated.” 

In reading such statements one is likely to think 
that the authors must have anticipated a clash of 
physical forces, of arms, indeed; yet nearly invari¬ 
ably these writers maintained, as did Pickens, that 
the states had under the Constitution a moral 

1 Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, March 13, 1830. 


56 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

power, in their reserved powers, which could give 
entire redress, and to the support of which at 
least half the states would rally if it became an 
issue. Some of the defendents of the faith might 
have added privately, as did Pickens, “but if we 
do not succeed constitutionally and peaceably, 
I am free to confess that I am for any extreme, 
even ‘war up to the hilt,’ rather than go down 
to infamy and slavery ‘with a government of 
unlimited powers.’” He favored immediate 
action, for to his mind there never had been as 
good a time for the state to act as then. The 
administration was really weak, and from the 
constitution of the parties in the general govern¬ 
ment its power was lessened; it' might in a few 
years be otherwise. 1 

The possibility that nullification might involve 
disunion caused many to hesitate; this is abun¬ 
dantly shown by the correspondence, pamphlets, 
and newspapers of the time. Many, however, 
believed implicitly that there was a conception 
of nullification in which even the possibility of 
secession had no place, and that, in fact, in so far 
as resistance to the obnoxious laws of Congress was 

1 Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, May 13, June 26, 
1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 


57 


likely to be successful or even beneficial, it must 
be legal or constitutional. 1 Some openly broached 
the subject of peaceable secession from the Union 
and contended that such action was not only 
justifiable but would leave the general govern¬ 
ment without power or pretense of a reason for 
coercion. 2 Others thought of nullification and 
secession as two entirely distinct measures by 
no means closely related, the latter to be thought 
of only as a last resort. 3 This class thought that 
there was great evil in writing and talking about 
disunion or secession, because it would shock and 
disgust the people to such an extent that it 
would prejudice them against any remedy what¬ 
ever and prepare them for submission. 

While many saw clearly the relation between 
nullification and secession, and that the latter 
might follow the former, they differed widely as to 
their predictions of what would actually happen 
in case nullification were tried. Many of this 
class clearly defined nullification as an exercise 
of the sovereign authority of the state, declaring 

1 Hammond Papers: William D. Martin, representative at 
Washington, to Hammond, March io, 1830. 

2 A writer in the Columbia Telescope in the fall of 1829. 

3 Hammond Papers: Eldred Simkins, Sr., to Hammond, March, 
1830. 


58 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

a law of the general government void and inopera¬ 
tive in that state on account of its unconstitu¬ 
tionality. In other words, they held that 
authority to pass it was not delegated by the 
states in the formation of the Union, and, that 
the state, not having agreed when it entered the 
confederacy to the exercise of such authority by 
Congress, would not allow it to be exercised now 
unless three-fourths of the states, according to 
the terms of the Constitution, agreed to make 
this sanction an addition to that Constitution. 
In that event the state must submit, or rebel 
against its own stipulations and revolutionize the 
government. 1 In the case of the tariff the consent 
of the three-fourths of the states, necessary to give 
the power to continue to pass tariffs, would not 
be secured; 2 the southern cause would be tri¬ 
umphant and the republic saved. Surely there 
was nothing dreadful about that. 3 

1 Columbia Southern Times, May 10, 1830. 

2 The tariff men could muster eighteen states, but that would 
not be three-fourths. 

3 To make this process more simple, some suggested that the 
southern states should endeavor to procure such an amendment to the 
federal Constitution as would give one-fourth of the states, through 
their representatives in Congress, the power to demand that an act 
of the federal legislature, threatening an infringement of their 
rights or affecting their interests, should be passed by a majority 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 59 


Still others who saw clearly the relation of 
nullification to secession professed loudly that the 
party in South Carolina opposed to the usurpations 
of the federal government did not desire disunion; 
they claimed to contemplate nothing but a peace¬ 
able and constitutional assertion of the rights of 
the state; but they admitted that if she were 
opposed in restoring the Constitution to her 
conception of its purity, the Union might be dis¬ 
solved; they then placidly washed their hands of 
all blame in such an event by saying that such 
blame must be laid at the door of those who first 
trampled on the Constitution. Many of this 
class were not entirely honest in their public 
professions. In reading the editorials of many 
of the ardent nullification sheets the reader feels 
that while they tried to belittle the possibility of 
disunion, and to shift all blame for such an event 
from their shoulders, yet they really saw that 
disunion was quite likely to result from the 
step they urged. 1 

of three-fourths, voting by states, of both branches of Congress. 
This they viewed as the only principle which would effectually 
protect the minority under a confederated government (Charleston 
Southern Patriot, May 8, xi, 1830). 

1 Mercury, March 27, 1830; Telescope, June 18, July 16; Times, 
June 17. 


60 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Another large class, then becoming known as 
the Union party, decried nullification in any form 
whatsoever. To them the doctrine, however dis¬ 
guised, spelled revolution. 1 

During the greater part of 1830, men were read¬ 
ing and talking, and perhaps thinking; they 
were preparing themselves to be aligned when 
party lines became rigidly and severely drawn. 
By the middle of the year the moderates seemed to 
be gaining the upper hand in a way that set the 
action party on its guard. 2 Judge William Smith, 
General Stephen D. Miller, and General James 
Blair were now looked upon by the nullification 
supporters as prominent among the advocates 
of moderation whom it would be desirable to crush 
or cajole into shifting their position. More work 
of education had to be done in the cause of nulli¬ 
fication; the people did not understand it well 
enough. Pickens thought the Nullification party 
was neglecting its campaign of education by not 
publishing more pamphlets, which he considered 

1 Patriot, July and August, 1830; Columbia Southern Times 
6* State Gazette, July 8. On this date the Southern Times took this 
new title. It will still be referred to hereafter simply as the Times. 
The Unionists will receive more attention below. 

2 Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, June 26, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 61 

far more effective with the people than newspaper 
articles. 1 

Public dinners and barbecues came thick and 
fast in June and July. The toasts reported from 
the various campaign feasts showed a great variety 
of sentiment. The sentiments were nearly unan¬ 
imous in their deep sense of the wrongs of the 
South and their determined resolution to redress 
them; but as to the measure of redress they 
differed widely. Nullification by the legislature, 
by state convention, secession, disunion, a con¬ 
vention of southern states, were all proposed. 
Some, however, expressed dissatisfaction with 
the state rights and “ Carolina” doctrines. Most 
of them professed love for the Union, but greater 
love for state sovereignty to resist oppression. 


1 Hammond Papers: Pickens to Hammond, June 26,1830: “... . 
We are negligent in one thing, and that is that we do not take pains 
enough to spread information in an easy way and in such a way before 
the people that they would read it. Now when we get into the tariff 
and internal improvement country, we see, on every man’s table who 
has the slightest influence, piles of writing in pamphlets on those 
subjects which are so interesting to them, and by this systematic 
. . . . course [they] affect public opinion there; they keep the 
people united and excited. Here we have nothing of it. We have 
had nothing hardly but the Crisis published so that everybody would 
read it, and that was so blunt and coarse [with] its talk about disunion, 

that the people were chilled by it.The people will not read 

in the newspapers so well and with as much impression anything, as 
if it were in a pamphlet before them.” 



62 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


Clearly, however, there was no strong demand for 
nullification, and secession was far from the 
thoughts of all but a few. 1 

At Charleston on July i a “public dinner” was 
given in honor of William Drayton and Robert Y. 
Hayne, “exclusively by Friends of the Southern 
States.” 2 About six hundred banqueters were 
accommodated at the city hall. Hayne had 
before been the spokesman for the Nullifiers and 
he did not disappoint them this time. Drayton, 
however, spoke against nullification, and upheld 
the federal judiciary in a way that long rankled in 
the minds of the Nullifiers and called forth many 
an article and editorial to show that there were cases 
in which a state might throw itself upon its sover¬ 
eignty and protect its citizens from an uncon¬ 
stitutional law, in spite of a decision of the Supreme 
Court that the law was constitutional; the 
Constitution itself, indeed, needed the protecting 
shield of state sovereignty against Congress and 
the Supreme Court. 3 To Drayton’s assertion 
that a government whose acts were not obligatory 
on its citizens would be a strange anomaly, it 

1 Times , July, 1830; Mercury and Courier for the same month. 

2 Mercury, July 2, 1830; Times, July 22. 

3 Mercury, July 8, 13, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 63 

was answered that a government whose every act 
was obligatory on its citizens would be much more 
dangerous, if not equally anomalous; the pecul¬ 
iarly happy feature of our government was, it 
was said, that to resist the unconstitutional and 
oppressive abuses of power was not rebellion nor 
revolution, as in other governments, because 
of the possible intervention of the state veto. 1 

Other men spoke at this dinner, among whom 
were James Hamilton, Jr., Robert J. Turnbull, 
Henry L. Pinckney, and Langdon Cheves. The 
first three were Nullifiers; but the last-named 
observed that the southern states were all equally 
interested in the existing crisis and that it would 

1 Drayton recommended a course of reasoning with the North 
as all that was warrantable or necessary to induce it to yield on 
the tariff. Such a program was said to be worthy of a new leaf in 
“the history of knight errantry, expressly to record the adventures 
of a champion who would venture forth armed only with his bugle, 
expecting to demolish ramparts and prostrate veteran warriors by 
its enchanting sounds alone; and, what would add infinitely to the 
romance of his achievements, by proclaiming with loud voice to all 
he meets, the appalling alternative, that if they did not yield, he 
would.” Nothing but decided and immediate action would do, said 
the editor of the Times, July 22, 26, 1830. “Moultrie” in the 
Mercury, August 7, took almost the same position. He noticed the 
“crocodile eulogiums” pronounced by the northern press on Dray¬ 
ton’s speech, because it counseled conservatism which the northerners 
interpreted to be an assurance that their aggressions would not be 
resisted seriously. 


64 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


not do for South Carolina to take any step without 
their co-operation. 1 The dinner was looked upon 
by many Unionists as a political move on the 
part of the Nullification-Disunion party to popu¬ 
larize its doctrines. 2 

The Webster-Hayne debate was a fortunate 
piece of advertising for the doctrine of nullifica¬ 
tion, and came just at a time when such publicity 
was most needed. The South Carolina papers 
printed many of the speeches almost entire. 3 The 
nullification press of course gave most of its 
space to Robert Y. Hayne, enthusiastically 
approved his exposition, and slurringly referred 
to Daniel Webster as the “Janus-faced, blue-light 
federalist” or in other terms equally reproachful. 
Webster was not without his worshipers, however, 
even in South Carolina, and a few papers pro- 


1 Mountaineer, July 16, 1830. 

2 It was said that the Mercury had wanted to hold a big public 
meeting to get Hayne’s nullification doctrines indorsed, but had 
gauged popular opinion to be adverse; under the circumstances the 
best it could do, to get anybody at all to attend, was to give a dinner 
and invite Drayton; his friends attended because they knew he would 
disavow the doctrines of Hayne and Turnbull (see Gazette, June, 
1830; Courier, July 9). 

3 Mercury, February 2, March 17, 1830; Telescope, March 5; 
Mountaineer, February 27; Times, February and March; Congres¬ 
sional Debates, Vol. VI, Part I; Houston, Nullification in South 
Carolina, chap. vi. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 65 


nounced his to be a lucid and just exposition of 
the true principles of our government, an able 
and unanswerable defense of the Constitution 
against the dangerous construction of its powers 
which would render not only its efficiency, but 
its very existence, dependent upon the caprice of 
a state legislature. 1 

The feature of the debate which seemed most 
to encourage the Nullifiers was the indorsement 
of Hayne’s position by certain men from all parts 
of the North; what had lately been called a 
treasonable tendency and derided as the “ Carolina 
doctrine” thus gained supporters from sections 
supposed to be completely inimical; the increasing 
popularity of the cause seemed abundantly wit¬ 
nessed. The whole issue gained importance by 
being transferred from the newspapers and some 
of the state legislatures to the Senate of the United 
States. Since some of the friends of the adminis¬ 
tration supported the principles set forth by 
Hayne, the Mercury ventured to predict that the 
President himself would consistently maintain 
them. With the right of a state to nullify a 
dangerous and unconstitutional law apparently 
admitted by some of the ablest statesmen of all 

1 Courier, March 9, 1830; Gazette, March 9. 


66 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

sections, the nullification papers boasted that 
their doctrines were rapidly extending to all parts 
of the Union. This had its effect on many of 
the doubtful and the timid in South Carolina, and 
encouraged the leaders to press more boldly their 
demands for action. Surely, they argued, now 
when the cause seemed on the way to victory, 
its parent state, South Carolina, should not falter. 1 

Others thought that the debate decided nothing 
except that “orthodoxy is my doxy, and hetero¬ 
doxy is your doxy.” Some of the Nullifiers 
admitted that the debate on abstract principles 
left the issue an open one until decided by a 
concrete case. This they thought to be at hand, 
and they held it the duty of South Carolina to 
force the issue. It would be a glorious achieve¬ 
ment if the people of South Carolina asserted 
and maintained her sovereignty. But if they 
meanly shrank from the contest, awed by imagi¬ 
nary fears, and submitted to all the wrongs heaped 
upon them, unmitigated oppression would be 
their present doom, and future infamy their 
merited reward. The October elections must 
decide her fate. 2 

1 Mercury, March 23, April 1, 1830; Telescope, March 5. 

2 Times, April i, 1830; Messenger, March 10. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 67 


In the movement leading to the organization of 
the Union party the most prominent figure, in 
the uplands at least, was Benjamin F. Perry, 
who in January, 1830, launched the Greenville 
Mountaineerd Perry was a clear thinker, an able 
writer, and a fearless advocate. In contrast to 
the Nullifiers, who preached state sovereignty as 
the sine qua non of existence and belittled the 
Union on all occasions, the first principle in Perry’s 
faith was a belief in the people as the only 
true and legitimate sovereigns; and the next 
dearest object of his thoughts was the Union of 
the United States. The only circumstance that 
could induce him to contemplate a dissolution 
would be the necessity of doing so to preserve 
republican government; but that such a con¬ 
tingency would ever arise he could not believe. 

The great body of the Union men were opposed 
to all protective duties; they thought the existing 
tariff unjust, oppressive, and a fraud upon the 
Constitution, because it purported to be a revenue 
measure and was avowedly a protective measure. 
But they preferred to suffer while evils were suffer¬ 
able, relying on a returning sense of justice in the 
American people. 

1 Mountaineer, January 16, 1830. 


68 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

To them the Constitution was a complex but 
harmonious scheme of civil polity, every part of 
which was equally necessary to the support and 
well-being of the whole. The powers of sover¬ 
eignty were distributed among the several state 
legislatures and the government of the United 
States. To the federal government had been 
delegated certain express powers, and in the 
exercise of these powers this government was 
unlimited. To the state governments belonged 
all powers not ceded to the general government 
and not expressly denied them in the federal 
Constitution or in their own respective constitu¬ 
tions. In the exercise of their legitimate powers 
the state authorities were supreme, and any 
encroachment upon their spheres by the United 
States was an unwarrantable usurpation. But 
to call either the state authorities or the people 
of any state an independent sovereignty, in the 
true sense of the word, was unquestionably a 
misnomer; for neither the state governments 
nor the people of the states had the right to 
declare war, make peace, form alliances, regulate 
foreign commerce, keep an army, or build a navy, 
all of which powers were essential to sovereignty. 1 

1 Mountaineer, January 16, April 23, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 69 


At one period in the history of our country, said 
the Union men, the states were independent 
sovereignties. This was immediately after their 
separation from the British crown and before the 
adoption of the Articles of Confederation. Then 
each state had the power to do what it pleased 
and was under the control of no authority. It 
could declare war, make peace, and enter into 
treaties of alliance. But on the adoption of the 
Articles, and still more on the adoption of the 
federal Constitution, the states had yielded up a 
large portion of their sovereignty for the purpose 
of forming a government which should be able 
to protect and defend their rights. They from 
that time on ceased to be sovereign. They 
were from then on unknown among the nations 
of the earth. The states might properly be 
called sovereigns in the exercise of their reserved 
rights, but to apply the term any further was a 
misnomer. 

The consolidation of all power in the general 
government on the one hand, said the Union men 
further, and the separation of the several states on 
the other, would be equally fatal to liberty. There 
would arise out of the one a despotism which would 
grind and crush everything to earth; and out of 


70 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the other would come confusion, anarchy, and 
civil war, with a horrible train of calamities. In 
construing the federal Constitution equal care 
should be observed to avoid both these issues. 
An unlimited latitudinarian construction would 
give rise to the one, and a rigid literal construc¬ 
tion, by disarming the national government of its 
ceded power, would cause the other. 

The federal judiciary, to the Union men, was 
the great arbiter between the national and state 
governments, and they believed that this tre¬ 
mendous power of settling disputes between these 
governments could not have been lodged any¬ 
where else with so much propriety. To say that 
each state had the right, either in convention or 
in its legislature, to determine on the constitution¬ 
ality of the proceedings of the general government, 
would be to place the country in that desperate 
extremity in which it was under the Articles of 
Confederation. The power to settle disputes 
between the general and state governments had to 
be vested somewhere; it was the intention of the 
Federal Convention to make the judiciary the 
interpreter and guardian protector of the Consti¬ 
tution; this intention was clearly and indis¬ 
putably expressed in the Constitution itself; this 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 71 


was the sense of all parties at the time of the 
adoption of that social compact; the Supreme 
Court had invariably exercised this power ever 
since its first establishment; and, consequently, 
this tribunal was properly the great arbiter in all 
matters arising between the national and state 
governments. 

The opinions of many national statesmen from 
the time of the Federal Convention, including 
many South Carolinians, and the Exposition of 
1828 itself, were cited to verify this view. The 
federal judges were not, as some persons said, the 
interested creatures of the general government. 
They were indebted for their appointment to the 
United States Senate, whose especial care it was 
to guard the sovereign rights of the states. They 
held their offices during good behavior and were 
selected for their talents, learning, and purity of 
character. Their salaries could not be diminished 
and they were responsible to Congress for nothing 
but misdemeanors in office. Such men, under 
such circumstances, were not easily influenced. 
But this view was somewhat marred by a willing¬ 
ness to admit that the federal judges were more 
likely to have a partiality for the national than for 
the state governments. On the whole, the Union 


72 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

men were quite as dogmatic about the place occu¬ 
pied by the Supreme Court as were the Nullifiers. 

As to the power of nullification vested in a 
state, whence was it derived ? The Unionists 
answered, Surely not from the federal Constitu¬ 
tion itself. There was nothing in that compact 
which would warrant such a deduction. Some of 
the Nullifiers, however, averred that it was 
derived from the very nature of an agreement 
entered into by independent sovereignties. But 
the Union men did not think so. It appeared 
to them utterly impossible, from the nature of 
the federal Constitution, that such a power 
should inhere in the states. They could not con¬ 
ceive how the right of nullification could be exer¬ 
cised compatibly with the principle of the Union. 

If to each state were given the power of decid¬ 
ing on the constitutionality of the proceedings 
of the general government, where would be the 
bond of union ? Would it not have been always 
discretionary with the states whether they would 
submit to an act of Congress or put their veto upon 
it? What obligation or compulsion would they 
be under to be governed by a law of the United 
States ? None, answered the Union men, save 
their own arbitrary will or pleasure. If a measure 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 73 

of the general government were unacceptable to 
any one state, she would have nothing to do but 
to pronounce it unconstitutional and by this means 
get rid of it. It was no argument to say that some 
laws could not be called unconstitutional; for 
men when prompted by passion and interest would 
see everything through jaundiced eyes. The 
plainest and most positive gifts of power would be 
doubted and misunderstood. It seemed to the 
Union men beyond the possibility of a doubt that 
this power of nullification would make for an 
infinitely weaker government than that which 
had existed under the Articles of Confederation. 
The only parallel for such a union was to be found 
in this country during the Revolutionary war. 
Then the states were bound by no confederation 
save that of mutual interest and common danger. 

They were told, however, that there was a pos¬ 
sible check on this veto of the states. When an act 
of Congress had been declared unconstitutional, 
an appeal might be carried from this decision of one 
state to a convention of all the states. If three- 
fourths of the states should concur in upholding 
it as constitutional, then it must become a law, 
and the state pronouncing it unconstitutional 
would be forced to submit. Thus, it seemed, the 


74 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 


whole machinery of government was to stop until 
a federal convention could be called. 

Suppose war were declared and the little state of 
Rhode Island, seeing that her commerce was about 
to be cut off and ruined thereby, should say the 
war was unconstitutional and put her veto on it; 
this would end the matter until a convention could 
be called. In the meantime the enemy would be 
free to range the country and to leave it when he 
saw fit. The friends of nullification might suppose, 
however, that a generous foe would wait until the 
federal convention could settle the constitutional¬ 
ity of the war. But if the votes of three-fourths of 
the states could not be obtained in favor of the 
war, the government would have to surrender 
at discretion to the enemy. The Union men 
doubted very much whether this would not have 
been found literally true during the War of 1812 
when the Hartford Convention assembled. At 
that time one-fourth of the states were opposed 
to the war and could have put an end to it. It 
could not be said that a division of opinion could 
never arise as to so plain a matter as the legality 
of a war, said the Union men, for the people of 
New England would no doubt have raised that 
very question during the War of 1812 if they 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 75 

had properly understood and believed in the 
powers of nullification. 1 

The opponents of nullification asked if that 
system of checks would not put it in the power 
of any one state to force the government to call a 
convention, and if this were true under the doc¬ 
trine, as they understood it to be, whence was the 
power derived ? Did not the Constitution say 
that two-thirds of the states were required to call a 
convention ? Yet by the nullification doctrine 
one state was given the right of exercising this 
important power, which the framers of the Consti¬ 
tution were unwilling a majority of the states 
should possess. Was not this an open, palpable, 
and dangerous infraction of the federal compact ? 
Furthermore, asked the Union men, where was the 
clause of the Constitution which conferred the 
power of construing that instrument upon three- 
fourths of the states ? They knew very well that 
this number had the right to make amendments 
to the federal Constitution, but they believed that 

1 Professor F. M. Anderson in “A Forgotten Phase of the New 
England Opposition to the War of 1812” printed in the Proceedings 
of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, Vol. VI, says that, 
though neither the word “nullification” nor “secession” was used 
by the New Englanders, yet practically all of the elements of those 
doctrines as later championed by Calhoun were presented. 


76 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


there was a great difference between construing 
an old compact and making a new one. 1 Surely 
a smaller number should be allowed to construe 
an agreement than was required to make an 
entirely new one. If three-fourths of the con¬ 
tracting parties must concur in every construction 
of their compact, would it not, in all probability, 
remain forever a dead letter? Would it ever 
be construed at all ? Could so large a number 
agree in drawing any power from it when their 
interests clashed ? 

The friends of nullification might say what 
they pleased, but the exercise of this veto power 
by the states, with the right of an appeal to a 
federal convention, was nothing more nor less 
than taking all power out of the hands of the 
majority and putting it into those of the minority. 
It was in fact the establishment of an aristocracy of 
the very worst kind. The majority, indeed almost 
three-fourths of the people, would be governed by 
one-fourth. If this, the Union men felt, were 
consistent with the true principles of a republican 
government, if it were not the commencement 

1 The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution was merely a 
construing of the old compact, an interpretative dictate as to its 
construction. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 77 

of a vile aristocracy, which must end in anarchy, 
then they knew nothing about the nature and 
theory of government. If the majority were 
unworthy of being intrusted with power, the 
minority were more so, and consequently they had 
better “petition the Almighty, as the children of 
Israel did in olden times,” to give them a king, who 
might rule them in peace and head their armies in 
war. 

If this nullification construction of the Consti¬ 
tution should ever prevail there would have to be 
a federal convention in constant session, and the 
whole country would remain in a revolutionary 
state. There could be nothing like fixed and 
settled principles of government, but the people 
would have to be always making new constitutions 
and destroying old ones by negative votes. 
For instance, suppose South Carolina declared an 
act of Congress void and it went to a convention 
of the states; suppose a vote of three-fourths of 
the states could not be obtained in favor of the 
law; there would be the end of it. If a one- 
fourth vote could be obtained against a law, it 
would be void. Thus the power of legislation 
as well as that of making and construing the 
Constitution would be vested in no less a number 


78 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

than three-fourths of the states. If this ever 
came to pass, the Union men cared not how 
soon a dissolution of the Union might follow, 
for they too held it to be the right of a people to 
revolutionize their government when evils were 
insufferable. 

Some of the Union men agreed that when they 
could be made to perceive any, even a meta¬ 
physical, distinction between nullifying a statute 
of the United States and absolute rebellion, they 
would take a stand that moment for nullification, 
for South Carolina had suffered under an unright¬ 
eous legislation on the part of Congress long 
enough and severely enough to warrant any step 
on her part short of severance of the Union. But, 
“with all proper deference to others,” they looked 
upon such a thing as constitutional nullification 
as “very much of a downright absurdity.” That 
South Carolina, like every other state in the Union, 
had a “perfect right to resolve herself into her 
original elements,” no person could deny; she 
had the right at any moment to secede from the 
Union, and they would leave the question open 
whether the oppressions that had been heaped 
upon her had not become sufficiently intolerable 
to justify her in such a step; but it “sickened” 


Nunification Advocated and Denounced 


79 


them to hear so much of her right to do so and 
still remain a component portion of the confeder¬ 
acy. The act itself was revolution, and she must 
either conquer or be conquered by the Union; 
or the Union must peaceably acquiesce in the 
separation, and the state must become an inde¬ 
pendent and disconnected sovereignty. 

If the “good people of South Carolina” had 
made up their minds that the time had arrived 
when the Union was in point of fact of no “ value ”; 
that actual separation and war were preferable to 
any further endurance of congressional usurpation 
and injustice; then let them so declare themselves 
and act accordingly. The Union men pledged 
themselves to sink or swim in the storm with 
the people of the state, but they insisted that the 
people exercise no self-deception about it. Let 
things be called by their true names and followed 
out to their legitimate consequences. It would 
be worse than idle to argue that such an act was 
anything but revolution. 1 


1 This summary of the Union position is taken from various articles, 
communications, and editorials in the Greenville Mountaineer, the 
Camden Journal, the Charleston Courier, the Charleston Gazette, and 
the Charleston Southern Patriot. Good examples of these may be 
found in the Journal, July 3, and the Mountaineer, February 27 and 
April 3, 1830. 


8o Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

At the same time that such sentiments were 
expressed, the people of the North were warned 
not to be deceived into thinking that the people 
of the South and of South Carolina who opposed 
the tariff were but a paltry few, “a desperate and 
unprincipled faction, a small number of noisy 
and restless demagogues”; instead of a faction, 
it was “the whole people arrayed against federal 
usurpations.” One Union editor believed that 
there were not 150 individuals in South Carolina, 
outside of Charleston, who did not deprecate the 
tariff system as unjust, unequal, and oppressive. 1 

The Columbia Times editors showed themselves 
to be heartily with the South, but at the same 
time professed to love and venerate the Union, 
to have a “holy, all but superstitious reverence” 
for it, and to believe that most of the people felt 
the same way. They asserted that South Carolina 
did not aim at disunion; yet merely to arouse 
attention, they said, they believed in talking about 
disunion, and opened their columns to writers who 
tried to show that the South had all the resources 
necessary to resist invasion by the North, and 
to support a government when separate. The 
position this sheet now consistently held was 

1 Journal, August 7, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 81 


that though disunion was not desired, the people 
were nevertheless prepared to stick to their prin¬ 
ciples even to that end, if necessary; the talk 
about disunion was to be used only to show that 
if the oppression did not cease, and if in fact it 
became unbearable, there was an alternative, 
however much it was dreaded. 1 

The Charleston Gazette objected in to to to dis¬ 
cussions of this nature as idle, mischievous, and 
pregnant with the most fatal consequences; for, 
“when men desperate in fortune, surveying from 
a precipice with indifferent eyes the extended 
chasm below them, begin to argue with themselves 
the possibilities of surviving a leap into its bosom, 
it is but a slight transition indeed from the specu¬ 
lation to the actual experiment.” This editor took 
an interesting fatalistic view of the South’s posi¬ 
tion. He thought the tariff oppressive, uncon¬ 
stitutionally so, and held that the practice of 
the government was oppressive to the South 
in many particulars; but he did not believe 
that any change in those measures then supposed 
to bear directly and heavily upon the South 
would tend very greatly to its relief. The evils 
of the condition of those living in this section of 

1 Times, January 29, February 8, March 1, 1830. 


82 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the country arose from their unequal representa¬ 
tion, which failed to present to the rapacities of 
others, not otherwise restrained, any bulwark 
of sufficient importance to secure them a proper 
consideration and the equal justice due them in 
common with their brethren, North, East, and 
West. Even separated from the rest of the Union, 
standing alone among the distinct and divided 
sovereignties of the land, the South would be 
worse off, less secure, a prey to more powerful 
neighbors. The South, as the weaker section, was 
laboring under a great disadvantage, but inevita¬ 
bly so, and should not chance a worse condition. 1 

The Pendleton Messenger at this time took no 
decided stand, but presented both sides of the 
question. Its editor’s course may be cited as an 
example of unusual open-mindedness. He kept 
his columns open neutrally, and himself took no 
decided stand until he became thoroughly con¬ 
vinced by arguments and events. In 1831 he 
became a vigorous advocate of nullification. This 
was typical of the course of many individuals, as 
the toasts at Fourth of July celebrations showed. 2 

1 Gazette, June i6, 1830; the Pendleton Messenger, March 31, 
copied an article from the Gazette. 

2 Messenger, June 9, July 7, 28, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 83 


The Charleston Courier bristled with articles and 
editorials against the nullification doctrine, and 
the Charleston City Gazette , the Charleston Southern 
Patriot, and the Camden Journal kept up an inter¬ 
mittent fire against the heresy. 1 

Excitement was so intense that prudence could 
not be assured; men were neglecting their business 
for politics, and boys were being reared as pro¬ 
fessional politicians. 2 The result was that the 
press articles did not always maintain a dignified 
tone nor rely only upon sound argument, but 
recrimination was common on both sides. The 
advocates of nullification, the leaders of the 
“unholy crusade,” were said to be only some six 
or seven lawyers and one associate judge, headed 
by Dr. Thomas Cooper, president of South 
Carolina College. The author of the statement 
to this effect said that he knew not a solitary 
instance of a planter, merchant, or mechanic 
who had harangued and urged the people on to dis¬ 
union. He had considered the leading districts 

1 Typical examples are found in the Courier, March 24,31, May 12, 
June 10, 21, July 19, August 16, 1830; Gazette, June 21, July 7, 
September, and October; Patriot, June 28, July 27, September 8; 
Journal, August 28, July 3, 24. 

2 Joel R. Poinsett Papers: Joseph Johnson to Poinsett, July 17, 
1830. Gazette, April 7, July 7. 


84 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

one by one, and had concluded that in each case 
lawyers were the stump orators of the Dis- 
unionists. 1 

“Anti-Nullification” wrote in May 2 that an 
almost impassable gulf divided the matter-of-fact 
business men from the theoretical speculators on 
the affairs of men—of which they knew little or 
nothing — who affected a pride, with a flourish of 
guns, trumpets, and thunder, in ranking them¬ 
selves under the destructive banner of nullification. 
The first, the matter-of-fact men, asserted, with 
ample means to prove it, that business in Charles¬ 
ton had rarely been more vigorous than now. The 
second, the “Nullificators,” asserted, without 
proof, that everything was “dead or dying, and 
fast mouldering into insignificance.” The writer 
said he had just returned to the city after an 
absence of several years and found that the 
matter-of-fact men were nearer the truth. But 
he said that the trade of the city could be made 
much greater if its citizens were to take pains to 
develop direct trade with Europe. What the 
people needed was to think more of improving 

1 “A Native of Chesterfield District,” in the Courier, September 7, 
1830. Compare with above, p. 55. 

2 Courier, May 12, 1830. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 85 

trading facilities and commercial conditions gener¬ 
ally, and less about tariff and anti-tariff. 

Another writer 1 maintained that the disciples 
of disunion were generally young men, particularly 
young men whose families had once been wealthy 
but had been reduced, by the silent but power¬ 
ful effect of the statute on the equal distribution 
of estates, to the alternative of active industry 
or positive want. 

A leading Union editor said that the howlings 
of many of the publications, in different parts of 
the state, about the American system, internal 
improvements, tariff, and northern manufactures 
ought to be regarded as a mere hoax, trumped 
up by a few artful, designing, though disappointed 
politicians, who were willing to sacrifice the 
interests of their fellow-citizens and to jeopardize 
the state for the sake of their own personal 
aggrandizement, “to gratify an unhallowed ambi¬ 
tion, a fiendish lust of power.” 2 With the excep¬ 
tion of John C. Calhoun and a few others, the 
Nullifiers did rely more on bombast and appeals 
to the emotions than upon sound reasoning. 
As yet, however, Calhoun had no prominent place 
in the nullification campaign. 

1 Courier, March 24, 1830. 3 Courier, October 12, 1830. 


86 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The use of harsh words was not confined to one 
side. The opponents of nullification were accused 
of being “Submission men,” ready to yield any 
and everything to the central government; their 
party was tauntingly referred to as the Submission 
party, and the members of it as “cowards,” 
“recreants,” “tories,” “Yankee party of Charles¬ 
ton,” “federalists,” and “luke-warm politicians.” 
They were said to be “Clay men,” and that 
was about the worst thing that could be said of 
a South Carolinian. 1 Some editors there were 
w r ho were more magnanimous, and, though they 
themselves took more or less of a partisan view, 
credited both sides with honest motives. 2 

For a time the Nullifiers claimed to have Presi¬ 
dent Jackson on their side in this discussion; 
but after the Jefferson celebration in Washington 
in the spring of 1830, when he gave the toast: 
“The federal Union—it must be preserved,” 
both factions boasted of his support. The inter¬ 
pretations of this toast varied greatly, with the 
result that even late in the year there was much 
uncertainty as to just where he stood. To this 

1 Courier, August 25, September 17, October 9, 1830; Moun¬ 
taineer, September 24] Patriot, July 27; Journal, August 7. 

2 Mountaineer, July 16, 1830; Messenger, July 21. 


Nullification Advocated and Denounced 87 

toast the Mercury said “Amen,” observing that 
there was but one way to preserve the Union, and 
that was to induce the majority to respect the 
rights and feelings of the minority; or, in other 
words, to induce the North and East to repeal or 
modify the “iniquitous measures by which the 
South” was “impoverished and enslaved.” That 
the President alluded to this way was too evident to 
admit of the shadow of a doubt, said the Nullifiers, 
and to them appeared most ridiculous the inter¬ 
pretation of such papers as the National Intelli¬ 
gencer , with which the Courier agreed, that in 
view of the speeches which had preceded Jackson’s 
toast it meant: “You may complain of the tariff, 
and perhaps with reason; but so long as it is the 
law, it shall as certainly be maintained as that 
my name is Andrew Jackson.” The Mountaineer 
took the toast as a plain threat that any hostile 
feeling in any part of the country toward the 
Union must and should be put down; that the 
Union would be preserved at all hazards. 1 

1 Mercury, April 24, 27, 1830; Courier, April 26; Mountaineer, 
May 7. 


CHAPTER III 

THE FIRST TEST OF STRENGTH (1830-31) 

At various times early in 1830 a state conven¬ 
tion had been suggested. Its advocates gradually 
gained in number, until in May it bade fair to 
become the main issue. A number of Charleston 
citizens, though they were opposed to the tariff, 
raised an objection to a convention, thereby 
evidencing continued disaffection between the 
upper and lower sections of the state; for the 
Charlestonians feared that if a convention were 
called it might not confine itself to the national 
issue, but might change the legislative representa¬ 
tion within the state so as to destroy the weight 
of the lower country in the legislature. 1 This 
raised the question whether a convention could be 
restricted to the consideration of specific subjects. 
To this was soon added the query whether a con¬ 
vention’s action upon federal relations could be 
dictated, or whether the alternative between nulli¬ 
fication and secession must be left to its discretion. 
It was replied that the legislature might, in the 


1 Mercury, May 15, 1830. 


88 


The First Test of Strength 


89 


resolution calling a convention, state the reasons 
why a convention was deemed necessary, but that 
it had no more right to dictate what should be 
done than it had to declare itself the master 
instead of the servant of the people. 1 

By July 4 the issue was definitely drawn, and 
state-wide parties were forming for and against a 
convention. In many cases, when candidates 
for the legislature were announced, their position 
on the question was challenged and the answers 
became the determining factors in their election. 2 
As an example ,of the extent to which this was 
true, the case may be cited in Greenville of three 
early candidates who indorsed the convention 
project. But soon the public sentiment in the dis¬ 
trict was seen to be so preponderantly hostile 
to it that these three withdrew from the race. 
They were men high in public esteem, however, 
and the proposal was made that they be elected 
under instructions and pledges against a con¬ 
vention. But the candidates, saying that they 

1 Mountaineer, June 4, 1830; Messenger, September 8. 

2 Hammond Papers: L. P. Saxon to Hammond, July 6, 1830; 
J. H. Irby to Hammond, July 5; T. T. Player to Hammond, July 10; 
B. M. Pearson to Hammond, July 13; B. F. Whitner to Hammond, 
September n. Mercury, July 17, August 13, September 24, 1830; 
Times, August 9, 26; Messenger, August 18; Mountaineer, May 21. 


go Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

would be embarrassed by such election under the 
existing circumstances, declined the honor. 1 

In some places, however, the line of division 
was simply between Unionism and Nullification, 
apparently with the tacit understanding that 
all Unionists would oppose and all Nullifiers sup¬ 
port a convention; but as the campaign pro¬ 
gressed, the convention issue became confused 
in many parts of the state and did not mark 
a clear line of division between the two parties. 
Politics became the great business of life in many 
sections; the excitement was so great that not only 
the candidates, but many of the active partisans 
on both sides, spent their whole time in election¬ 
eering. 2 

The greatest obstacle the advocates of a con¬ 
vention had to overcome was the apprehension 

1 Times, August 16, 1830; Mountaineer, August 6. In this 
same district the adherents of the “Non-Convention party” soon 
began to feel their power and to glory in it. They began to talk of 
running a man for Congress in opposition to Warren R. Davis, 
because he had spoken for a convention. The Mountaineer tried to 
discourage this because it would be an unjust merger of two distinct 
matters; the delegate to Congress could have nothing to do with 
the question of a state convention. Davis had been a very able and 
fearless supporter of true southern policy in Congress, and to throw 
hi m out would be foolish. 

2 Hammond Papers: D. L. Wardlaw to Hammond, July 24, 1830. 


The First Test of Strength 


9 i 


that disunion, civil war, and bloodshed must be 
the consequences of their proposal. The con¬ 
vention advocates endeavored in diverse ways to 
overcome this. Some stressed the hopelessness 
of reliance upon Jackson for redress; some pointed 
to the folly of further patience and forbearance; 
some explained away the prospect of strife, simply 
in order to win convention supporters, while others 
honestly believed that a convention would adopt 
only peaceable measures; others, after belittling 
the fears as to the outcome of a conflict, delivered 
outright “war” toasts and speeches. 1 In many 
places the Conventionists asserted that their 
candidates would favor not only a convention, 
but with it “strong measures.” 2 

1 Hammond Papers: T. T. Player to Hammond, July 10, 1830. 
Times, August 26, September 9; Messenger, August 18; Mountain¬ 
eer, August 13, in a letter by W. R. Davis. 

2 Hammond Papers: B. M. Pearson to Hammond, July 13, 1830. 

This campaign of education carried on by the convention advocates 
and the fears they had to overcome are clearly shown by a letter 
from Benjamin F. Whitner to Hammond, telling of the condition 
in Chester (Hammond Papers: Whitner to Hammond, September ii, 
1830). Whitner said in part: . I have had repeated con¬ 

versations with many of the plain but intelligent farmers with whom 
business has brought me in contact, and I find the apprehension uni¬ 
versal that the friends of convention do not propose it as a peaceful 
remedy. But in every instance where I had an opportunity to 
explain and illustrate the right of the state to this exercise of 


92 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

On September 20, a so-called State Rights 
meeting, promoted by the convention advocates, 
was held at Columbia. Though largely composed 
of men from the immediate vicinity, it was to 
some extent a general convention of the interior. 
Many prominent men spoke and many others 
sent letters. The great majority of these not 
only favored a convention, but openly declared 
for state action, immediate and decisive, though 
Judge Langdon Cheves demanded instead a 

sovereignty—to distinguish between the constitutional resistance of 
the people to an unconstitutional law and their rebellion against an 
oppressive law, but one which Congress have the right to pass—I 
have found the people in favor of convention. They can scarcely 
believe that so much clamor could be raised against convention 
if by it the people are only to do in an aggregate capacity what they 
all do now individually—that is, assert the law to be unconstitutional 
and endeavor to devise the best mode of ridding themselves of it. 
And although I think it extremely doubtful whether the question of 
convention will be carried, I have not the least question that but for 
the false alarm that has been so industriously excited through the 
country, the general voice would call for it almost unanimously. 

“I am glad to hear a great many of the yeomanry speak of 
attending the meeting in Columbia on the 20th. [Referred to below.] 
And I do hope that those who may figure as public speakers on that 
occasion may be conciliating and plain, stir up no angry passions, nor 
excite prejudice and ill will by aspersing the motives and questioning 
the patriotism of those who differ with them [and] who are timid 
and slow to adopt any course that may unnecessarily jeopardize the 
peace and union of the states. From such a meeting, so conducted, 
great good may yet result even in time for the approaching elections. 
God grant it may.” 


The First Test of Strength 


93 


program of co-operation with the rest of the 
South—a program which twenty years later 
became the platform of the controlling party in 
the state. Judge J. P. Richardson also spoke 
strongly against nullification, but Robert Barnwell 
Smith, who changed his name later to Robert 
Barnwell Rhett, declared for resistance regardless 
of any stigma which might be put upon its 
advocacy. Chancellor William Harper offered 
a resolution, adopted by a large majority of the 
two or three thousand present, calling for a state 
convention. But the reports of the speeches 
and letters indicate strongly that many who were 
willing that a convention be called were opposed 
to nullification. 1 

This Columbia meeting was taken as a strong 
expression from the interior that a convention 
would be demanded and carried through, even 
though Charleston were against it, as it then 
seemed to be. 2 But it was evident at this time, 
and became more so as the campaign progressed, 
that there was no agreement among the Con- 
ventionists as to when the convention should meet 
or what it should do. Some favored its prompt 

1 Mercury, September 24, 1830; Times, September 23, October 10. 

2 Mercury, September 24, 1830; Times, September 2. 


V 


94 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

assemblage. Others, with Chancellor Harper, 
thought that since such a course would seem too 
much like a threat, the convention should meet 
after the next session of Congress, that is to say, 
in April or May. He thought the postponement 
would have a good effect on Congress. As to its 
purpose, while some thought that the calling of a 
convention for any other object than that of 
nullification was idle, others believed that it 
should initiate measures for co-operation of some 
sort with the sister states, and should by no means 
resort to nullification. 1 Among the convention 
supporters there came to be quite a number of 
Union men who thought that a convention might 
be beneficial in showing the North that the 
opposition was not a mere factious one, and that 
it could protest against the tariff more effectively 
than could the legislature, even though its only 
weapon should be the same—resolutions. 2 

The Anti-Conventionists were not idle. One 
of their leading spokesmen maintained that if a 
convention were called, it would be for the pur¬ 
pose of nullifying an act of Congress, which must 
either result in disunion or render the federal 

1 Patriot, October 13, 1830; Journal, December 14. 

2 Mountaineer, September 3, 1830; Journal, August 28. 


The First Test of Strength 


95 


government unworthy of preservation. The 
people should know this and determine for them¬ 
selves. If, knowing it, they declared for a con¬ 
vention, then every citizen should abide by the 
decision and support its policy to the end. But 
he believed that it was too soon to act; South 
Carolina should wait for the return of good sense 
to the American people, which must come soon. 1 
If, however, the state were resolved to act, it 
should do so openly and boldly, without any 
attempt to shield itself behind metaphysical 
constructions of the Constitution. 2 

It goes without saying that all supporters of the 
tariff in South Carolina were against a convention. 


1 Mountaineer, May 21, November 12, 1830; Courier, November 
12. Judge William Smith was another holding this view—against 
a convention because the tariff and internal improvement systems 
were fast crumbling away and would soon be demolished. 

2 The editor of the Camden Journal claimed just before the elec¬ 
tion that the Convention party would not number more than fifty 
out of 800 voters in the district and that there were not ten in the 
town. “But,” he added, “there is not one ‘submission’ man” in the 
district. The editor of the Columbia Times and Gazette asked: 
“If you are opposed to a convention and yet not for giving up, 
pray what remedy do you propose ? ” The Journal editor answered 
that he was for resistance in every constitutional way, by the use 
of moral force, of reason and argument, to the point where shown 
useless, and then for a convention to withdraw from the confederacy. 
The Times editor then answered that if the Journal editor could show 
that nullification would produce disunion or civil war, the Times 
would abandon the doctrine at once {Times, October n, 2r, 25,1830). 


g 6 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The most formidable group of all these was in 
Charleston, but there were a few scattered through 
the interior of the state, some of whom were new¬ 
comers from the North and were not allowed 
to forget it. Some were shopkeepers who were 
said by their critics to have been “misled by 
the artful sophistry about prices which the 
Yankee wholesale dealers in Charleston and else¬ 
where” were always passing along with their 
commodities; and a few were substantial farmers 
who had “taken Niles’ Register until their facul¬ 
ties” were “all bewildered.” 1 

But by far the greater number of those opposed 
to a convention were men who hated the tariff 
but loved the Union and South Carolina enough 
to wish to avoid any measure which might en¬ 
danger either. They believed that if a conven¬ 
tion were called, it must, as Judge William Harper 
said, if it acted at all, nullify the laws of Con¬ 
gress; they quoted Colonel William Drayton to 
the effect that nullification meant disunion, and 
Langdon Cheves’s opinion that a convention must 
assume “revolutionary vigor.” All this, they 
said, meant that South Carolina was to revolt 
alone against the United States; this would be 

1 Hammond Tapers: D. L. Wardlaw to Hammond, July 24, 1830. 


The First Test of Strength 


97 


treason and would be treated as such. Further¬ 
more, if the Union were saved in spite of South 
Carolina’s folly, as would probably be the case, 
the state would suffer. Nullification undertaken 
by South Carolina would result as the revocation 
of the Edict of Nantes had done in France — it 
would cause the emigration of a large part of all 
classes of the population. 1 Some there were, too, 
who took sides merely from the habit of opposi¬ 
tion to rivals who now happened to have declared 
themselves on the other side. 

The man who was looked upon as the logical 
organizer of the Union or Anti-Convention party 
was Joel R. Poinsett. He had just returned from a 
mission to Mexico and was finishing his business 
in Washington and Philadelphia in July, when he 
was urged to return to South Carolina to help the 
Unionists, whose cause needed careful and judi¬ 
cious management. 2 When Poinsett arrived in 
Columbia he found there some old and valued 
friends, who, though opposed to the nullification 
doctrine, regarded opposition as hopeless against 
such an array as had declared themselves for 
nullification; and he found the same views 

1 Courier, September 21, October 8, r830. 

2 Poinsett Papers: Joseph Johnson to Poinsett, July 17, 1830. 


98 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

among the Unionists in Charleston. But after 
frequent conferences, Daniel E. Huger, James L. 
Petigru, James R. Pringle, Joseph Johnson, and 
others, as well as Poinsett, resolved at all hazards 
to organize an opposition to the schemes which to 
their minds promised ruinous consequences. 1 
The work of organization was also materially pro¬ 
moted by Colonel William Drayton. 2 The Union 
party organization did not become effective, 
however, until their opponents had long been at 
work, and at no time did they feel confident of 
victory. Many, indeed, felt that the nullification 
disaffection had gained such a start that it would 
sweep over the state like an epidemic, a “terrible 
fever.” 3 These were happily surprised at the 
results of the elections in October. 

In Charleston the city election came the first 
week in September, and served as a preliminary 
test of strength; for although this question of 
state policy had no actual bearing upon the 
functions of city officers, it was made the issue of 
the campaign. There were to be chosen an in- 
tendant (mayor) and twelve wardens (aldermen). 

1 Poinsett Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, October 23, 1830. 

2 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, December 20,1830, shows 
the extreme prejudices against which the Union party had to work. 

3 Mountaineer, September 3, 1830. 


The First Test of Strength 


99 


Henry L. Pinckney headed the ticket of the 
State Rights and Jackson party, as the Nulli- 
fiers called themselves. In its declaration of 
principles their organization denied the disunion 
charge, and, though not specific as to a program, 
asserted that the Union and the Constitution 
would be safe. 1 The opposing ticket was headed 
by James R. Pringle. The men of this party 
also claimed to be a Jackson party, and called 
themselves the State Rights and Union party. 
They were for state sovereignty as they inter¬ 
preted it, but opposed to the calling of a con¬ 
vention, nullification, and to disunion. 

While the election was close, the entire Union 
ticket was elected. Although the Union party 
had been referred to by their opponents as the 
“regular Adams and Clay and Tariff” party, they 
pointed out after the election that the result must 
not be interpreted to mean that Charleston was 
any more disposed than she ever had been to 
tolerate the “Protecting System.” The result at 
the polls was interpreted as merely an expression 
of the majority in the city against a convention. 2 

1 Mercury, August 30, 1830. 

2 Gazette, September 7, 1830; Patriot, September 7; Courier, 
September 7. 


ioo Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The State Rights party immediately held a 
rally in the form of a subscription supper with a 
business meeting added. Some six or seven 
hundred were present. This meeting adopted an 
address to the people to explain the defeat of the 
party. It was due in large part, they said, to what 
they called the false charge that they would 
involve the state in war, which had turned the 
bankers and merchants against them. They 
declared that they would not give up, but had 
just begun to fight; and they were confident that 
the state could be carried for the convention even 
without St. Philip’s and St. Michael’s. 1 

The election for state representatives and 
senators came on October n and 12. The Union 
party had come out openly against a convention, 
but even up to the time of the election the ad¬ 
herents of the State Rights party in Charleston, 
or at least their paper, the Mercury , had not openly 
declared for a convention. Their policy, softened 
by their recent defeat, was, as the Courier put it, 
to leave “their flag white, to be painted by the 
Columbia artists.” By this concealment of their 
motives they hoped to gain votes, and they per¬ 
suaded three of the Union party’s nominees to let 

1 Mercury, September n, 24, 1830; Times, September 2, 16. 


The First Test of Strength ioi 

their names be placed also on the State Rights 
ticket. 1 

There was to be elected at this time also a 
member of Congress from the Charleston district. 
William Drayton, the candidate of the Union 
party, was unopposed. A writer in the Courier 
remarked upon the humor of the situation which 
forced the Mercury and its followers to make the 
best of Colonel Drayton’s candidacy, and to 
pretend to honor and admire him, when in reality 
they honored him as much as Shy lock did Portia. 2 

The candidates for the state Senate were 
Richard Cunningham on the State Rights ticket 
and James L. Petigru in opposition. The former 
was elected by the small majority of twenty-five. 
The State Rights party tried to make much of this, 
but its opponents pointed out that Cunningham 
could not have been elected over Petigru if he had 
not assured his supporters that he was against nulli¬ 
fication and a convention. Perhaps they hoped 
to be able to change his position after electing him. 3 

1 Courier, October i, 2, 1830; Journal, October 23. 

3 Courier, October 2, 9, 1830. 

3 The vote stood 1,268 to 1,243. Mercury, October 15, 1830; 
Courier, October 16. Poinsett Papers: a letter with this notation 
upon it: “Confidential—copy of a letter from a Gentleman dated 
Charleston, October 15, 1830.” 


102 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Of the sixteen state representatives elected in 
Charleston, eleven were Union men and five 
were State Rights men, though three of the 
former were also on the State Rights ticket. 
Of the five State Rights men elected, only three 
were said to be Nullifiers. Taking the average of 
the Union candidates, the vote was 1,261, and for 
the State Rights candidates, 1,245. The excite¬ 
ment over the election is shown by the fact that 
a much greater vote was polled than at any 
other election which had ever been held in 
Charleston. 1 

As returns came in from the rest of the state, 
the papers published such conflicting statements 
of the probable stand the members-elect would 
take on the convention question, that the Camden 
Journal rightly concluded, after having con¬ 
templated publishing an analysis of its own, that 
it was impossible even to approach accuracy. 

1 Mercury, October 15, 1830; Gazette, October 15; Courier, 
October 14, 15. The vote polled in various preceding years was as 
follows: 1812, 1,942; 1814, 2,003; 1816, 1,812^ 1818, 1,991; 1820, 
2,125; 1822, 2,020; 1824, 2,061; 1826, 2,089; i828 > 2 > o6 75 i8 3 °> 
2 ) 575 - Before the legislative session closed a new member had to 
be elected from Charleston to fill the place left by Hugh S. Legar6, 
who became Attorney-General. At this extra election Petigru was 
elected over Laurens, a State Rights man, by 1,266 to 1,041 {Mercury, 
December 16; Courier, December 20). 


The First Test of Strength 103 

The only true list, it said, would come with the 
record of a definite vote in the legislature. 1 
Although in midsummer the issue in regard to the 
calling of a convention seemed in most sections to 
be clearly drawn between the Nullifiers and the 
Unionists, as the campaign progressed the sup¬ 
porters and opposers of a convention did not 
divide uniformly along the Union party and 
State Rights party lines. 

When the legislature assembled, the two parties, 
after some preliminary skirmishing over the elec¬ 
tion of speaker and governor, devoted themselves 
to a general debate upon the convention project 
and the nullification doctrine. 2 The personal 
alignment upon the two issues was not identical, 
for while some Conventionists were not Nullifiers, 
some Nullifiers desired a different mode of pro¬ 
cedure than a state convention. The concrete 
question voted upon, however, was that of ordering 

1 Times, November 11, 1830; Mountaineer, November 19; 
Journal, November 20. 

2 The State Rights party soon elected Henry L. Pinckney to be 
speaker of the House, 63 to 31, and later elected James Hamilton, Jr., 
governor, over Richard I. Manning, 93 to 67 (joint ballot). Clearly 
they had a majority, but the necessary two-thirds was doubtful 
{Messenger, December x, 1830; Courier, December 13; Times, 
December 10, 23). 


104 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

a convention. 1 When the ballots were taken 
the results were: in the Senate, 23 for and 18 
against a convention; in the House, 60 for and 56 
against. 2 The Convention party thus had a 
majority but not the constitutional two-thirds. 
Its cause was for this time defeated. The Conven- 
tionists solaced themselves, however, by carrying 
through a set of resolutions. 

The first three proclaimed the state’s intention 
to defend the Constitution of the United States, 
and her attachment to the Union; they asserted 
that the power of the federal government was 
limited by the “plain sense and intention” of the 
Constitution, and that in case of “deliberate and 
palpable and dangerous exercise of powers not 
granted in the Constitution” the states were “in 
duty bound to interpose, to arrest the evil”; 
these resolutions were approved unanimously. 3 
Thereupon Daniel E. Huger moved a resolution 

1 Courier , December 15, 1830. Chief among those who spoke 
for a convention were W. R. Hill, William C. Preston, Thomas 
English, A. P. Butler, Henry L. Pinckney, T. T. Player, B. F. Dunkin, 
F. W. Pickens, and Alfred Huger. Those who opposed it were D. E. 
Huger, J. P. Richardson, J. J. Presley, William McWillie, and 
Thomas Williams. 

2 Mountaineer, December 24, 1830; Courier, December 20; 
Mercury , December 22. 

3 Messenger, December 29, 1830. 


The First Test of Strength 105 

that the legislature did not recognize as con¬ 
stitutional the right of an individual state to 
nullify or arrest a law passed by Congress, but 
this was rejected by a large majority. 

The fourth resolution asserted that the general 
government was not one of unlimited powers to 
which the states must submit, but one of special 
powers delegated by the states; that all other pow¬ 
ers were reserved to the states, and that any exer¬ 
cise of undelegated powers was unconstitutional; 
that the general government was not judge of its 
powers, but that “ each party ” to the compact had 
an equal right to judge for itself “as well of infrac¬ 
tions as of the mode and measure of redress.” 
This was carried by a vote of 93 to 31. The fifth 
resolution declared that the general government 
had shown a tendency to expand some of its 
powers to a degree destructive of the republican 
system and creative of an unlimited and abso¬ 
lute government; and this was carried by a vote 
of 103 to 9. The sixth asserted that the tariff 
acts were violations of the compact, and that 
a state, whenever other hope of redress was 
gone, might properly “interpose in its sover¬ 
eign capacity, for the purpose of arresting 
the progress of the evil occasioned by the said 


106 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

unconstitutional acts.” This was adopted by a 
vote of 90 to 24. 

The fourth and sixth resolutions were the ones 
in which the State Rights men took greatest 
comfort. 1 Although they were not able to get a 
convention, they had persuaded the legislature 
to assert in formal resolutions what they claimed 
to be the doctrine of nullification. This was at 
least a positive step in advance of the legislative 
proceedings of 1828. 

The Union men now insisted that their victory 
did not mean that submission was to be the pro¬ 
gram of the state. They rejoiced that the crude, 
half-way measure of a convention had failed, and 
with it an attempt at nullification, which its origi¬ 
nators had endeavored to present in such a way as 
to avoid the responsibilities which might logically 
be expected to result from its adoption. The 
Union men now professed themselves ready to 
adopt any plan by which the South might be 
relieved, in a way constitutional and expedient, 
from all or any of the burdens which it was thought 
she bore. They had simply shown that they 
would not be driven by excitement to embark 
upon unknown seas, under the command of Turn- 

1 Times, December 17, 23, 1830; Messenger, January 5, 1831. 


The First Test of Strength 107 

bulls, Coopers, and other “demagogues and 
agitators.” 1 

Plots of the votes in the legislature on the con¬ 
vention question, especially that of the Senate, 
show that most of the votes against the con¬ 
vention project came from the upper districts and 
from a few of the parishes near Charleston. 2 
The interior districts which were opposed were 
in most cases those where the slave population 
had not yet reached 50 per cent of the total 
population. 3 

1 Gazette, December 30, 1830. 1 See Maps II and III. 

3 In looking over a series of maps (of which those printed in this 
volume are but a fraction) showing the geographical location of the 
centers of support of the two parties, one notices that the northern 
counties tended to vote consistently with the Union party, and that 
in general those counties which opposed the things for which the 
State Rights party stood were those in which the introduction of the 
institution of slavery had made least progress. 

The negro population had reached 50 per cent of the total popu¬ 
lation in Beaufort, Colleton, Charleston, Williamsburg, and George¬ 
town by 1790; in Sumter and Richland by 1800; in Orangeburg and 
Kershaw by i8ro; in Marlboro by 1820; in Darlington, Fairfield, 
and Newberry by 1830; in Barnwell, Edgefield, and Abbeville by 
1840; in Chester, Union, and Laurens by 1850; it had not reached 
50 per cent in Horry, Marion, Chesterfield, Lancaster, York, Spar¬ 
tanburg, Greenville, Pendleton, and Lexington by 1850. 

In the maps published in this volume the districts indicated by 
dots were those in which a majority of the people opposed the Nulli- 
fiers, while the districts indicated by straight lines were those in 
which a majority voted with the Nullifiers. 


108 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The net result of the contest in the legislature 
was that the State Rights party was obliged to 
bide its time once more. 1 During the early 
months of 1831 the papers simply watched Con¬ 
gress and exploited any indications of a hostility 



Map II.—Senate vote on state convention, 1830 


to tariff reduction. They discussed nullification 
or convention hardly at all, but seemed to think it 
necessary to go back to a more primary step in the 
educatoin of the people and go over again all the 
old arguments against the tariff. They urged 

1 Hammond Papers: J. Hamilton to Hammond, February 5,1831. 





















The First Test of Strength 


109 

state action occasionally, when they believed they 
could point to something of striking value to show 
the folly of expecting anything from Congress. 

Early in the session a letter from a South Caro¬ 
lina congressman 1 was published to prove that the 



tariff supporters were “feeling power and for¬ 
getting right.” Resolutions to inquire into the ex¬ 
pediency of reducing various duties were rejected 
by large votes. This was especially galling 

1 Mercury, January 21, 1831; letter by Warren R. Davis, Decem¬ 
ber 13, 1830. 


























































no Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


because the resolutions were merely for inquiry, 
and ordinarily such resolutions were never refused 
unless the subject-matter was offensive to the 
House. This was taken to show that Congress 
intended that the protective policy should be the 
settled policy of the country and no longer open 
to discussion. Surely, it was argued, this should 
be lesson enough for even that class in the com¬ 
munity who were for hoping, believing, bearing, 
and forbearing as long as any hope remained. 1 

A little later, when Congress did discuss the 
tariff, and Mallory’s report was published, it was 
referred to by the State Rights party as an avowal 
by the very leader of the tariff party that pro¬ 
tection was the primary object of the law; that 
the manufacturers would continue to make com¬ 
mon cause in support of the system; that the sepa¬ 
rate items of the tariff would no longer be examined 
singly, because the system, as some South Caro¬ 
lina statesmen had hoped, might be destroyed 
that way. Two representatives of South Carolina, 
James Blair and William T. Nuckolls, who had 
been opposed to a convention because they had 
thought the tariff could be reduced piecemeal, 

1 Mercury, January 22, 1831; Congressional Debates, Vol. VII, 
pp. 359 and 449. 


The First Test of Strength 


in 


were now said to be admitting that they had 
deceived themselves and the people. 1 

As the session of Congress progressed, every¬ 
thing available was seized upon by the Nullifiers 
to show, directly and by implication, that those 
who had argued that a convention was premature 
and useless had been in the wrong. Then in May 
the party speakers at public dinners and barbe¬ 
cues began to come out more openly again and to 
urge a speedy application of the Carolina doc¬ 
trines as the only means of relief. 2 

In the early summer the State Rights papers 
began to chide the Anti-convention papers for not 
publishing an amount of anti-tariff material 
sufficient to prove that they were true South Caro¬ 
linians. 3 It was charged that in combating the 
nullification doctrine they were allowing them¬ 
selves to be carried off into the incidental, if not 
open, support of those very measures against 
which they had formerly fought. To this the 
Anti-convention papers answered that there was 
no need of continuing to print anti-tariff doctrines 

1 Mercury, February 5, 17, 1831. 

2 Mercury, March 12, April 13, May 20, 1831; Messenger, April 13. 

3 The Banner of the Constitution, published in Philadelphia by 
Raguet, was recommended as the best source of anti-tariff material. 
See Messenger, June 8 , 1831; Camden and Lancaster Beacon, June 21. 


112 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


which the people of South Carolina already be¬ 
lieved in. Three years previously, when there 
was something like a tariff party in the state, they 
had published no end of material on the tariff; 
but now, when some of these papers had scarcely 
a reader who was a tariff man, it was unnecessary. 1 

In July and August there were numerous meet¬ 
ings to appoint delegates to an anti-tariff con¬ 
vention to be held in Philadelphia in September. 2 
The State Rights men, who had now changed 
the name of their party from the State Rights 
and Jackson party to the State Rights and Free 
Trade party, 3 were especially active at these meet¬ 
ings. In some of them the Nullifiers and the Anti- 
nullifiers clashed, although both were opposed 
to the tariff. 4 While some of the Union men 
confessed a lack of faith in this Philadelphia 
meeting, some of the State Rights men contended 
that the promptness with which the State Rights 
and Free Trade party met the overtures and sent 
delegates showed the falsehood of the charge 
against them of hostility to the Union; they 

1 Journal, June 18, 1831; Mountaineer, August 27. 

2 Messenger, July 27, 1831. 

3 See below, p. 153. 

4 Journal, July and August, 1831; Camden and Lancaster Beacon, 
September 6, 7. 


The First Test of Strength 113 

desired to promote every measure which promised 
to “bring their tariff brethren to a sense of justice, 
and only in the last resort to interpose the sover¬ 
eignty of the state” in protection of her citizens. 1 

The Philadelphia convention held sessions 
from September 30 to October 6 and was attended 
by about two hundred delegates from fifteen 
states. Virginia was first and South Carolina 
second in number of delegates in attendance, 
and a South Carolinian, Warren R. Davis, was 
given credit for having promoted the convention. 
A memorial against the tariff was sent to Congress, 
but, as the time drew near for another session of 
Congress in December of 1831, little confidence 
was placed in the memorial; the northern sup¬ 
porters of the American system might, it was said, 
make a few concessions in the tariff, but on such 
articles and in such amounts as not materially 
to affect the system. 2 

Although South Carolina was so prominent in 
this anti-tariff convention, and her citizens were 
now regarded as practically unanimous against 
the tariff, there were some who boldly argued the 
fallacy of the two stock arguments, that the 

1 Mountaineer, July 30, 1831; Messenger, October 5. 

2 Messenger, October 19, 25, November 2, December 14, 21, 1831. 


114 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

burden of the tariff was unequal and that it was 
unconstitutional. The Charleston Southern Pa¬ 
triot 1 continually pleaded for “justice and sound 
reasoning” on this subject. It held that the 
reasonings of the party which proposed a most 
unusual remedy for southern wrongs were built 
entirely on the unsupported assumption that South 
Carolina, in common with the other southern 
states, suffered peculiar injury from federal legis¬ 
lation. In vain had proof been demanded that 
the South was enduring a wrong which did not 
affect the people of the United States collectively, 
with the exception of the small number engaged in 
manufactures. 

The charge was denied that the Patriot was 
trying to reconcile the southern states to the 
tariff and the American system; the editor 
claimed to be one of the first who had raised a 
cry against it, but he was for the truth about it, 
and against exaggerations which only put argu¬ 
ments at the command of the promoters of that 
system. He believed the system wrong for the 
country as a whole, and not so particularly for the 
South and South Carolina, as was represented by 
the Nullifiers. It was admitted that the South 


1 Patriot, June 15, 16, 17, 20, 1831. 


The First Test of Strength 115 

was justly more interested in the overthrow of 
the protective system because of prospective 
injuries, but not because of present ones. It 
was denied that any southern staple product had 
fallen in price because of the restrictive policy; 
and it was insisted that, until other sources 
for the supply of cotton were opened, the injury 
and loss would not and could not be sectional. 

The Patriot editor was not alone in pointing out 
that the tariff had not caused the fall in the price 
of cotton. A writer in the Courier gave a list of 
the prices of exported cotton from 1816 to the time 
when the tariff came to be so bitterly attacked. 1 
His conclusion was that the tariff had had no 
effect on the price of cotton and that there was 
not the shadow of a reason why it should have; 
the South had glutted the market with cotton 
by the opening up of the fertile fields of the South¬ 
west. The Yankees were not to blame; on the 
contrary, by setting up manufactures they had 

1 “Franklin,” in the Courier, August 18, 1831. The average 
price had been: 1816, 28 cents; 1817, 27! cents; 1818, 33 cents; 
1819, 20 cents; 1820, 15I cents; 1821, 14 cents; 1822, i6§ cents; 
1823, 105 cents. There was no tariff to cause a ruinous fall from 
33 cents in 1818 to 10J cents in 1823. In 1824, the year of the tariff, 
cotton sold for 14J cents, taking the average prices in January and 
June. In 1825, the year after the tariff, it was 27 cents in June, 
and in June of 1826 only 9 cents. 


n6 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

really prevented the price of cotton from falling 
still more. 

The argument which was perhaps most gener¬ 
ally accepted, however, came from George Mc¬ 
Duffie’s theories about the burdens of a tariff 
tax. This doctrine postulated not merely that, 
as all admitted, discriminating taxes in general 
were deterrent to production, but that the tariff 
particularly affected the cotton-producer; that it 
subtracted from his profits by compelling him to 
sell his produce at a reduced price. Its workings 
amounted to a reduction of the market value of 
southern products, the argument ran, because in 
the process of exchange it took more of the south¬ 
ern product to buy a protected article than an 
unprotected one. 1 

The Patriot replied to this contention. Con¬ 
ceding, it argued, that taxes were in a majority of 
cases divided between the producer and consumer, 
the question arose as to who was the producer 
most affected; McDuffie and his supporters over¬ 
looked the producer of the taxed commodity and 
insisted that the producer of the commodity ex¬ 
changed for the taxed one bore all of the impost 
which did not fall on the consumer. In the en- 

1 See Houston, Nullification in South Carolina, chap. iii. 


The First Test of Strength 117 

deavor to locate tax burdens one could not 
attempt to trace the more remote effects upon 
production; for at what point could one call a 
halt ? It would be found that one could not 
stop even at the producer who made the im¬ 
mediate exchange, but that one would be bound 
to follow the principle until he included nearly 
every class of producers engaged in the preced¬ 
ing exchanges. There was no objection to adopt¬ 
ing this view of the subject, provided that in 
judging of the effects of the tariff on American 
production the principle was not made to stop 
with the grower of cotton. 1 

Other prominent men, such as Colonel William 
Drayton, 2 though they, with the majority of the 
Union party, thought the tariff acts unjust and 
oppressive and repugnant to the meaning and 
spirit of the Constitution, pointed out that it must 
be borne in mind that these sentiments were at 
variance with those of many of the most dis¬ 
tinguished patriots. 3 In fact, the weight of 

1 Patriot, May 31, 1831. 

2 Courier, November 23, 1831. 

3 The protective system had been recommended, as both con¬ 
stitutional and expedient, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, 
Monroe, Adams, and Jackson. It was so considered shortly after 
the adoption of the federal Constitution, in a Congress of which 


ii8 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

authority seemed to be in favor of the constitu¬ 
tionality of the tariff acts; yet it was solely upon 
the ground of their being palpably unconstitutional 
that the right to nullify them was maintained in 
South Carolina. Surely the question of con¬ 
stitutionality must be admitted to be open to 
debate; then the State Rights party was wrong in 
asserting the right of nullification, since it based 
its contention on the construction of a doubtful 
clause. Such were the arguments of the Union 
party. 

Meanwhile Jackson and Calhoun were changing 
from friends and allies to irreconcilable foes; 
the latter was watching his presidential chances 
fade away, and he was soon to be forced to take 
an open stand on the controversy between his 
state and the federal government. 

several of the members had been delegates to the convention. It 
was so considered in South Carolina in 1816. The commercial 
and navigating states of New England were as hostile to it in 1816 
and 1824 as was South Carolina now. Their representatives had 
opposed it zealously and pertinaciously at these dates, yet not one 
of them had denied its constitutionality. In the late free-trade 
convention in Philadelphia all concurred in admitting the impolicy and 
injuriousness of the protective system, yet was it deemed advisable 
not to discuss its constitutionality, as opinions were divided upon the 
subject. 


CHAPTER IV 


A YEAR OF CAMPAIGNING (1831) 

The leaders of the State Rights party, although 
defeated in their attempt to procure a convention, 
had interpreted the legislature’s vote on the reso¬ 
lutions, especially the sixth, to mean that the 
legislature would be prepared to act as soon as the 
members then in doubt had lost all hope of redress 
from Congress. 1 Thenceforward their program 
was to draw from the work of Congress lessons 
of misplaced confidence, preach against the tariff 
with renewed vigor, and thus to try to prepare 
the people for positive action. By this process 
many recruits were gained. 

To Calhoun it appeared certain that the gen¬ 
eral government would not relax its hold unless 
compelled to do so; and it could not be forced 
to this action unless the South should unite in 
earnest and vigorous pressure, which he thought 
it almost hopeless to expect so long as Jackson 
maintained his popularity and his straddle on the 
tariff, unless one of the states should nullify the 
tariff acts. He therefore concluded that South 

1 Messenger, January 5, 1831. 

119 


120 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Carolina, the only state which could possibly 
be brought to “put herself on her sovereignty,” 
must make every effort to do so. 1 Nullification 
seemed at times to have hearty support in the 
neighboring states of Georgia and North Carolina, 
and it was believed by some that the doctrine 
would surely spread throughout the plantation 
states; 2 but while in some states there seemed 
to be a party ready to support it, in no state did 
this party show prospects of influencing the state 
to act immediately. Meanwhile, from Virginia 
there came distinctly adverse reports. 3 

1 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to Hammond, January 15, 
1831. 

2 Mercury, January 26, 1831. 

3 Hammond Papers: John S. Preston to Hammond, dated Abing¬ 
don, Virginia, April 17, 1831: “ . . . . The nullification doctrine 
of South Carolina being not at all understood is looked upon in this 
section of the state with horror. When, however, the doctrine is 
explained in the least, all admit that it is but the carrying out of the 
boasted Virginia principles upon which they so much pride them¬ 
selves. Any attempt to discuss the subject in the papers of this 
region would be useless and unprofitable. The people will not listen 
to it. They do not feel the weight of the oppressions of the general 
government, and when they are told of it and the ultimate tendency 
of the ‘System,’ they stun you with all the slangwhangery of Fourth 
of July patriotism, the greatness of the Union, and the blood and 
thunder of civil war. The selfishness of the Scotch-Irish and the 
phlegmatism of the Germans can never be roused to feeling and 
action until their own firesides are invaded.” 


A Year of Campaigning 


X2I 


Thus during the first half of 1831, while Con¬ 
gress was in session, the Nullification presses in 
South Carolina kept pounding away, first on the 
tariff and then on nullification, painting that 
remedy in ever more beautiful colors. 1 

1 Mercury, March n, April 13, May 28, 1831; Camden and 
Lancaster Beacon, March 15, 22; Messenger, July 6, 20, August 3; 
Charleston State Rights and Free Trade Evening Post, October, 1831. 
The Nullifiers saw the need of another paper in Charleston besides 
the Mercury, and established the Post on October 1, 1831. The 
editors took pains to answer any and all objections raised against 
the nullification doctrine ( Camden and Lancaster Beacon, March 15, 
1831; Pendleton Messenger, September 28). For example, some 
persons asked: Since in the state of South Carolina the majority 
claimed the right to govern the minority, must it not be granted that 
the majority of the Union should govern the minority? By no 
means, it was answered, for the cases were absolutely dissimilar. 
The Post, October 21, 1831, presented such an answer. The state 
was a single consolidated government, which, being democratic, 
must be ruled by the majority; but the general government was a 
federal government and must be governed strictly by the terms of 
confederation. These nowhere prescribed that a majority of the 
states should govern a minority. When a state disputed the author¬ 
ity of the federal government to perform certain acts, it was not a 
question between a majority and a minority. It was a question 
between two parties—the protesting state being one party and the 
other states the other party. In a single state the governing power 
might safely be left with the majority, as their interests and those 
of the minority must in all cases of importance be identical; but not 
so in a confederation of states, differing in climate, productions, and 
the character of their population. Here it was necessary that there 
be provided, as had been done, some protection for those states a 
sacrifice of whose interests and safety might be attempted in the 
federative council. The right of interposition was therefore left, 


122 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Calhoun was forced to take an open stand on 
the question of the relation of the states to the 
general government before he had expected to 
do so. 1 In July he issued a long public letter 
which at once appeared in most of the State 
Rights papers. It amounted to little more than 
a restatement of the Exposition; but this time 
his authorship was published. He did not expect 
that his statement or any force of argument could 
change public opinion in the North, but he did 
feel assured that the “coming confusion and 
danger,” which he had “for years foreseen,” would 

not to the minority as a minority, but to each of the several states 
for itself; and when a state exercising that right resisted in its sover¬ 
eign capacity, the question became one between equals, between sov¬ 
ereigns, to which it would be absurd to apply the terms “minority” 
and “majority,” since the sovereignty of a small state was equal to 
that of a large state and the sovereignty of one state equal to that 
of many states. How absurd, it was urged, to draw a parallel 
between the resistance of a sovereign state against the unauthorized 
acts of the agents of the league and the resistance of a parish or cor¬ 
poration against its own state government. Had England resisted 
the decrees of the Holy Alliance the case would certainly not have 
been parallel to that of Manchester or Liverpool resisting England. 
And yet some politicians persisted in attempts to “mystify truth 
by confounding cases equally dissimilar.” 

But it must be added that those who argued thus never thought 
that it might be equally absurd to liken the American government 
to the Holy Alliance. See W. W. Willoughby, The Nature of the 
State; J. W. Garner, Introduction to Political Science. 

1 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to Ingham, June 16, 1831. 


A Year of Campaigning 


123 


do so. Then he hoped to see the government 
restored to one based on the republican principles 
of 1798. 1 

Another event which the State Rights press 
exploited was an attempt by I. E. Homes and 
Alexander Mazyck to bring a case into court in 
order to get a decision upon the constitutionality 
of the tariff. The judge, however, would enter¬ 
tain only such evidence as related to the mere 
execution of the bond and would not admit the 
point of constitutionality for consideration. 2 

To promote its cause the party took occasion 
to give a State Rights ball for Governor James 
Hamilton, Jr., on March 3, in Charleston, at which 
the decorations were exclusively “emblematic of 
the cause of the South” and of the “Carolina 
Doctrines.” In the center of the floor was placed 
a huge palmetto tree eighteen feet high, in perfect 
foliage, to enkindle state pride and loyalty in the 
heart of every guest the moment he entered the 
hall. It was encircled with colored lamps and 
bore around it a transparency labeled Noli me 

1 Messenger, August 3, 1831; Calhoun’s Works, VI, 59 to 94; 
Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to Christopher Van Deventer, 
August s; Calhoun to S. L. Gouverneur, August 18; Calhoun to 
Armistead Burt, September 1, 1831. 

2 Mercury, September 24, 1831. 


124 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

tangere, below which was coiled a rattlesnake. 
This reptile was often associated with the pal¬ 
metto as an emblem of the state to hint that while 
South Carolina, like the rattlesnake, would give 
a warning, the stroke which followed would be 
fatal. 1 

When the State Rights and Free Trade party 
met in Charleston on June 25 to appoint delegates 
to the Philadelphia free-trade convention, it 
proceeded to complete the organization of a State 
Rights association, for which a committee to 
frame a constitution had been appointed at a 
previous meeting. This constitution provided 
for a president, six vice-presidents, a secretary, a 
treasurer, and a standing committee of nine to 
carry on correspondence with other committees, 
publish tracts, and call meetings. There was to 
be a regular meeting every month, and extra 
meetings might be called at discretion. The 
initiation fee was fixed at one dollar and the dues 
at twelve and a half cents a month. The constitu¬ 
tion furthermore contemplated the holding of 
semiannual conventions of all such associations 
in the state, at Columbia in December and at 
Charleston in March. 2 The state-wide movement 

1 Mercury, March 5, 1831. 2 Mercury, July 27, 1831. 


A Year of Campaigning 


125 


for federated associations made such rapid prog¬ 
ress that before the end of August as many as 
twenty-two meetings had been held in different 
parts of the state, at nearly all of which associa¬ 
tions were formed. The constitutions were all 
modeled after that of the Charleston association, 
the central association of the state. The party 
press made much of, and took great hope from, 
the movement. 1 

On November 7 the Charleston Association 
recommended that the auxiliary associations 
scattered over the state appoint delegates to a 
convention to be held at Columbia in December 
to adopt a more efficient plan of publishing and 
distributing among the people information in 
regard to the American system, the interests of the 

1 Messenger, August io, 1831; Mercury, August 26. That these 
were looked upon as associations for the more perfect organization 
of the party in the face of local opposition, is shown by the resolutions 
adopted by a Pendleton meeting, which asserted that the people of 
the district were so thoroughly united that it was unnecessary to 
form a Free Trade and State Rights association. Though the 
Pendleton meeting expressed sympathy with the spirit of the move¬ 
ment and wished the associations success, yet the people of Pendleton 
seemed to be in favor of delaying any further action until the next 
Congress had met, in view of the work of the anti-tariff convention 
at Philadelphia and of the fact that the entire public debt would 
soon be paid, which made it likely that Congress would act then, if 
ever. See Messenger, August 24, November 9. 


126 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

South, and its constitutional and confederate 
rights. During the fall the state seems to have 
given itself up to the business of politics. Din¬ 
ners and meetings were reported from all quarters. 1 
The convention met at Columbia on December 5. 
The roll showed a representation of from one to 
nine delegates from each of thirty associations. 
A committee was appointed to prepare an address 
to the people of the state on the object of the asso¬ 
ciations, and provision was made for the printing 
of ten thousand copies. A committee on tracts 
and one on contributions were put to work. 
Preparations to distribute tracts were discussed 
and an enthusiastic proprietor of stage lines 
offered to transmit gratuitously all packages sent 
by the State Rights associations. 2 

The Union men were equally active. They 
promptly denounced the State Rights associations 
as Jacobinical, and compared the officers of the 
Charleston association to Marat and Robespierre. 
The whole movement was called an imperium in 
imperio , designed to subvert all law and govern¬ 
ment, and was spoken of, indeed, as the actual 

1 Messenger , October 19, November 23, 1S31; Beacon, October 25; 
Post, November 25; Mercury, November 9. 

2 Mercury, December 9, 1831; Messenger, December 14. 


A Year of Campaigning 


127 


commencement of civil war and revolution. 1 The 
Union papers teemed with articles against the 
heresy of nullification. As to the famous sixth 
resolution of the last session of the legislature, 
passed by a vote of 90 to 24, of which the State 
Rights men were making so much, some of the 
Unionists contended that there was no warrant 
for nullification in it and that three-fourths of 
those who voted for it would deny that they had 
voted for nullification or sanctioned it as a con¬ 
stitutional means of redress. 2 Others, however, 
as they reflected upon the legislature’s transactions 
and upon the work of Congress, admitted that the 
outlook was gloomy. 

While Joel R. Poinsett believed that the Nulli¬ 
fication or Convention party was not as strong 
as had been thought, William Drayton was of 
the opposite view. It appeared to him that many 
members of the legislature who voted against the 
calling of a convention were not against that 
measure upon principle, but were merely averse to 
it at that time, and that the addition of their 

1 The State Rights press replied that the opposition was equally 
active if not so aboveboard in its work ( Mercury , August 3, 1831; 
Messenger, December 14). 

2 Camden Journal, March 26, 1831. 


128 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

group to those who favored the immediate call 
would have made a constitutional majority. 1 
The Union presses, however, continuing to keep 
up a bold front, answered the Nullifiers now with 
argument, now with irony and sarcasm. Each 
party, thinking that nothing succeeds like suc¬ 
cess, claimed that it was in the ascendant and 
that the other was dead or dying. 2 

It was pointed out that a Union which had 
flourished for half a century was rudely menaced 
with dissolution for an alleged palpable violation 
of the national Constitution; but when it was 
recollected that a Calhoun, a McDuffie, a Hayne, 
and a Hamilton had been the alternate defenders 
and defamers of the national Constitution, the 
sober-minded patriot should solemnly pause and 
distrust the views of such men, who would now 
demolish the political accomplishments of a Wash¬ 
ington, a Madison, a Jefferson, and a Franklin, 
to furnish speculative statesmen with materials 
and opportunities for uprearing a more splendid 
structure on their ruins. The editor who reasoned 
thus thought that the excitement in regard to the 
tariff could be allayed by a little sound reasoning 

1 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, January 29, 1831. 

2 Camden Journal, May 14, 1831; Camden Beacon, May 20. 


A Year of Campaigning 129 

and concession on both sides. He thought that 
the South was not suffering under the tariff as 
much as she imagined, and that the most of the 
protection afforded was purely incidental — a sort 
the South admitted to be constitutional. 1 

The Charleston City Gazette took delight in 
agreeing with the suggestion of a New Haven 
paper, that the names of a large number of dis¬ 
tinguished individuals in South Carolina should 
be printed along with those of the members of the 
Hartford convention, when the latter list appeared 
on the yearly anniversary of that event — an at¬ 
tention provided for by the gift of some patriotic 
individual in order to effect the uncomfortable 
immortality of the Hartford participants. The 
same paper held that there was probably as much 
to be apprehended from a too frequent discussion 
of revolutionary doctrines as from the general 
apathy which was supposed to precede despotism. 
This editor’s greatest consolation was his belief 
that the clamors against the usurpations of a 
corrupt majority came, not from sound patriarchs, 
the men of matured intelligence, virtue, and 
acknowledged patriotism, but solely from the 
discontented place-seekers. He was so firmly 

1 Columbia Free Press and Hive, February 5, 1831. 


130 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

convinced of this that, though he admitted that 
it was possible for men of talents and honor to 
talk deliberately and philosophically upon a sub¬ 
ject of this kind, he doubted the patriotism and 
integrity of any man who would openly or covertly 
advocate disunion on account of any pretended 
usurpations or inequalities in legislation that had 
ever occurred under the Constitution. 1 

Other men, too, who were apparently in a 
position to know, ascribed evil motives to the 
Nullifiers. William Smith wrote from Washing¬ 
ton that though the Calhoun party men professed 
to be opposed to the tariff, they pursued no 
regular system to bring about a reduction of it. 
They allowed a feeble effort to be made against 
the tariff, so feeble that they knew it must fail, 
and then exulted over the failure as argument 
against the Union men. He believed that they 
wanted, not a reduction of the tariff,but grievances. 
He reported that the doctrine of “Nullifica¬ 
tion and Convention” was as odious at Wash¬ 
ington as its most ardent opponents could wish; 
that those who supported it realized their situa¬ 
tion, were uneasy, and hoped yet to see Georgia 
embroiled with the general government over 

1 Gazetel, January 6, 10, 14, 1831. 


A Year of Campaigning 131 

the Cherokee Indian case, in which event they 
might join and make common cause with that 
state. 1 

One of the most bitter opponents of nullification 
was the able and sarcastic editor of the Columbia 
Free Press and Hive . 2 It was such a disgrace in 
South Carolina to have any connection with 
manufacturing interests that men would fight if 
accused of it. In the course of his campaign the 
Free Press and Hive editor appears to have 
printed a list of John Preston’s property to show 
that the latter was interested in some manu¬ 
facturing enterprises. It was thought that this 

1 Poinsett Papers: William Smith to D. E. Huger, February 16, 
1831. 

2 The following is a good sample of his style, from the issue of 
February 12, 1831: “This disorganizing demon [party spirit] loves 
to appear clad in the robes of patriotism and breathing the language 
of disinterested public spirit; often, ere the unsuspecting are aware, 
he insinuates himself into public favor, and when he finds his grasp 
on the popular feeling sufficiently firm he indites a vocabulary 
of his own, in which innovation signifies reform and reform 
revolution; laughing with demoniac pleasure to see the friends 
of order and constitutional reform startled at the develop¬ 
ment of his frightful stratagems, he kindly attempts to soothe 
their fears by an appeal to their chivalry, telling them of their 
womanish nerves and offering them the insolvents’ security by 
kindly offering to eat all the bodies which may fall in a war of his 
exciting.” The editor then denounced these “political blacklegs” 
and “gamblers.” 


132 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

would reflect disadvantageously upon his brother, 
William Preston, who was a candidate. 1 The 
result was a visit to the editor’s office by John 
Preston and a lively fisticuff. 2 About the same 
time a fight occurred between James H. Ham¬ 
mond, a Columbia editor, and C. F. Daniels, 
editor of the Camden Journal. This affair grew 
out of some comments on an election, in response 
to which Hammond made a special trip to Camden 
to chastise the editor. 3 The contest waxed hot, 
and although Union men seemed to be in personal 
danger if they became too offensive to their 
opponents, champions were not wanting. Espe- 

1 The same thing had been alleged against Judge William Smith 
for a similar purpose. Another example of this occurred the next 
year when the “Nullies” accused Colonel James Chesnut, the Union 
candidate for the state Senate in Kershaw district, of being a tariff 
man because he was interested in a cotton factory. The editor of 
the Camden Journal defended him by saying that he had an interest 
of just $1,300 in a cotton manufactory established by the late 
David R. Williams at Society Hill. The interest on this $1,300 was 
just about three bales of cotton, an article of which Chesnut raised 
600 bales annually. One of the wealthiest men in the upper country, 
the owner of three or four hundred negroes, with an immense 
landed estate, was on this ground accused of being a “d—d 
Federalist.” “Ridiculous!” said the editor (Journal, September 29, 
1832). 

2 Free Press and Hive, April 2, 1831. 

3 Shots were fired by the Journal editor, but a clinch made him 
miss his mark ( Journal , June 4, 1831). 


A Year of Campaigning 


i33 


dally did they resent the charge of being “Sub¬ 
mission men.” 1 

The Greenville Mountaineer , in contrast to some 
papers referred to above, did not impugn the 
motives of such men as John C. Calhoun, Robert 
Y. Hayne, George McDuffie, and James Hamilton, 
Jr., but its editor professed to feel certain that the 
leaders and advocates of nullification did not 
apprehend the dangers which he foresaw would 
result from these doctrines. They, no doubt, 
thought the doctrines not only constitutional, 

1 One of the best answers to this charge appeared in the Camden 
Journal, April 9, 1831, as an editorial on “Submission Men”: “For 
a year or two past it has appeared to afford great comfort to the 
advocates of nullification, war, bloodshed, and brimstone to call 
people who have little relish for a tournament with windmills sub¬ 
mission men, and they keep it up with undiminished zeal and good 

sense.We are submission men.We profess to submit 

to the Constitution of our country. We submit to the laws framed 
under the forms of that Constitution. We submit to the voice of a 
majority of the nation. We submit to government in preference to 
submission to anarchy, and we finally submit to the oaths we have 
taken to support all these things in their integrity. This is what we 
submit to; and now tell us whether these are any of the items to 
which you do not submit.” It is but a subterfuge to say one submits 
to the Constitution, but since it has been violated one is absolved 
from allegiance. “ We do ourselves believe the spirit of the Constitu¬ 
tion to have been violated; but a violation of the Constitution must 
be constitutionally remedied. Because A has cheated B out of his 
lawful rights, is B at liberty to knock A’s brains out for the offense ? 
The national legislature has enacted an unconstitutional law. Who 




134 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

but wise and judicious. But was it not enough 
to make them pause and reflect when Judge 
Daniel E. Huger, Judge William Smith, Colonel 
William Drayton, Judge J. P. Richardson, Chan¬ 
cellor Desaussure, Judge David Johnson, Judge 
William Johnson, Judge J. B. O’Neall, Judge Lee, 
Governor Richard I. Manning, Governor Bennett, 
Colonel Taylor, Joel R. Poinsett, James L. Peti- 
gru, Hugh S. Legare, and many others, distin¬ 
guished alike for their virtues, talents, patriotism, 

says so ? A state, a town, an individual. Does the state, the town, 
or the individual set itself up for judge upon the question, or does it 
submit to the expounders provided by the Constitution? The 
Nullifiers tell us that it is a base and cowardly ‘ submission ’ to obey 
the government when its requirements militate with their own 
notions of individual ‘sovereignty.’ Is there anything but Jacobin¬ 
ism, sheer, rank, unadulterated anarchy and opposition to every 
well-settled notion of government in this? Nothing under Heaven! 
And in this sense we glory in the name of submission men.” 

In answer to the question, “What do you propose?” the editor 
said that such a question was unbecoming to the opposition, when its 
own followers differed as to what policy to follow, and he added: 
“We propose to hate the tariff and the internal improvement system 
as we hate the devil. We propose to fight against them both in all 
constitutional ways and with all constitutional energy. We propose 
to urge against them every argument that can be mustered. We 
propose to give every vote against them which the Constitution 
allows us to send into the national legislature. And finally, we pro¬ 
pose when this kind of opposition proves unavailing, to ask the people 
of South Carolina whether they prefer secession to a longer continu¬ 
ance in the confederacy, and if they answer in the affirmative, to 
go with them and die in the last ditch! These are our propositions.” 


A Year of Campaigning 135 

and public services, not only regarded them as 
dangerous political heresies, but as the very seeds 
of disunion, discord, and revolution ? Why was 
it, he asked, that the South must get rid of the 
tariff at all hazards ? Was it more oppressive 
or more unconstitutional than other laws to which 
they had submitted ? 

The embargo was at one time, and the existing 
system of internal improvements was now, more 
ruinous to the country than the tariff. The pur¬ 
chase of Louisiana and the establishment of the 
National Bank were more glaring infractions of 
the Constitution than the encouragement of 
manufactures by protective duties. The Alien 
and Sedition laws were infinitely more alarming 
and more odious to the feelings of freemen than 
any measures Congress had passed before or since. 
And yet these oppressive and unconstitutional 
acts of the general government had been sub¬ 
mitted to by the people of South Carolina with 
no thought of disunion or nullification. The 
general tendency, he thought, was for these 
excesses to cure themselves by natural reaction. 
The Sedition law had expired amidst the execra¬ 
tions of the people; and the Alien law remained 
a dead letter on the statute books. The purchase 


136 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of Louisiana was considered the noblest act of 
Jefferson’s administration. The system of in¬ 
ternal improvements had been checked and 
stopped by the wisdom and firmness of Jackson, 
and the National Bank would probably soon 
receive its death blow from the same hand. 
Things had gone wrong before and had become 
right; they might do so again. The blessings 
the people enjoyed in spite of their alleged griev¬ 
ances were so great that they should “rather bear 
those ills we have, than fly to others that we know 
not of.” 1 

John C. Calhoun and George McDuffie were 
singled out by the Unionists for especially vigor¬ 
ous attack during the summer. The people who 
were quoting these men were reminded that they 
had erred before on some of the most important 
measures adopted by the government, and that 
they might be erring again; and that, at any rate, 
the mere mention of their names was not to be 
regarded as proof of the rectitude of a policy. 
Early in the summer a dinner was given in Mc- 

1 Mountaineer, May 14, 1831. By the middle of the year several 
of the papers on both sides had received such additional patronage 
and had such pressing demand made upon their columns by political 
material, that they felt that an increase of size was warranted 
( Mercury, May 27, 1831). 


A Year of Campaigning 


137 


Duffie’s honor at Charleston, at which, in a three 
hours’ speech, he spoke strongly for nullification, 
and rehearsed his argument that the producer 
and not the consumer paid the duty on importa¬ 
tions and that the southern planter annually 
gave to the government or to the northern manu¬ 
facturers forty out of every one hundred bales of 
cotton he raised. 1 McDuffie’s speech attracted 
much attention and was attacked generally by the 
Union press of the state as well as by that of 
the North. The editor of the Camden Journal 
averred that McDuffie’s tariff theories could be 
proved unsound by a schoolboy of ordinary intel¬ 
ligence. He praised McDuffie, however, for 
admitting that nullification was not a constitu¬ 
tional or pacific measure, while he denounced 
him for trying to persuade the people to hazard 
their all in resisting the tariff. 2 

1 The dinner was given on May 19. See Mercury, June, 1831; 
Journal, June 4; Mountaineer, June 4; Courier, May 30, June 9, 10. 

2 Other Union editors eagerly seized upon that part of his speech 
in which he admitted that the doctrine of nullification could not be 
derived from anything in the Constitution; this, they said, placed 
the question in its true light ( Mountaineer, June 4, 1831; Patriot, 
June; Journal, June 4). Many other writers picked his arguments 
to pieces, and one of them took occasion to point out the absurdities 
connected with the practice of giving such political dinners ( Courier, 
June 9, “Cato”; June 10, “One of the People”). “The practice 


138 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Calhoun’s public letter of July 26, 1831, to the 
Pendleton Messenger —his “Expose,” as it was 
called—was widely printed throughout the state, 
and was as widely attacked by the Union men, 
who tried to show that he had a wrong conception 
of the federal system. 1 The editor of the Colum¬ 
bia Free Press and Hive in particular, not at all 
chastened by Preston’s assault, indulged in elab¬ 
orate rodomontade against Calhoun and his 
theories. 2 

of giving dinners for the actual purpose of political excitement and 
influence, under the pretense of hospitality to distinguished strangers, 
is the vulgar machinery of party management. A few, so few as to 
amount to a mere fraction of the community, get up and attend this 
eating caucus. The guest, who is always a violent partisan, takes 
leave to say a few words, and to a toast of a line or two gives a pref¬ 
ace of three hours. Heated by zeal and wine, the audience clap 
hands, beat the table, rattle the glasses, and at the hint of the 
manager, spontaneously rise up and shout aloud, upon the conclusion 
of some inflated partisan grandiloquence, especially abusive of the 
great majority of the people, who do not attend, and are unrepre¬ 
sented. It is thus that the great managers of the party create matter 
enough to keep the columns of a nullifying paper full for a day or 
two . ” ( Courier , May 30). 

1 Mountaineer, August 20, 1831; Patriot, August n; Free Press 
and Hive, September 3. 

2 The issue of September 3, 1831, contains a choice example. 
The following appeared on November 5 and is typical: “Whether 
nullification is a spirit, some goblin damned, or a highly ethereal 
dementating gas, we confess our knowledge too limited in the 
abstruse sciences of metaphysics and materialism to decide; we must 


A Year of Campaigning 


i39 


Of course during all this controversy the Vir¬ 
ginia and Kentucky resolutions were repeatedly 
spoken of by. the Nullifiers as justifying their 
theories. Many Unionists, on the other hand, 
denied that nullification of the South Carolina 
brand could be found in those resolutions. Wil¬ 
liam Drayton, in an oration on July 4, 1831, gave 
the explanation of those resolutions which circu¬ 
lated widely as the platform of most of the Union 

leave these points to be settled by some greater name, which derives 
celebrity from a learned title. It shall be our task to mark with care 
and precision its effects upon the human system or the symptoms 
of that alarming disease which is the inevitable result of its inspira¬ 
tion. 

“Whether nullification be a demoniacal spirit or an exhilarating 
gas, it may be impossible to determine; but the disease it produces 
is established by the clearest principles of nosology; it belongs to the 
class Neurosis, order Vesania, and genus Amentia. It is chiefly 
confined to the brain, producing slight fever with extreme thirst 
for blood, and occasional prostration of appetite for Kentucky hogs 
and mules and Yankee manufactures, and a perfect loathing of 
wooden nutmegs.” He fears that the disease is “moveable” and 
may produce cholera morbus or sweating sickness if it falls upon the 
bowels or skin. “But should it continue a fixed Neurosis, an ade¬ 
quate enlargement of our already spacious lunatic asylum may be 
all that is requisite. 

“The distemper arising from nullification is manifestly an epi¬ 
demic, and although it spends its force almost exclusively on the 
brain, the great sympathy which exists between that important 
organ and the liver causes the latter function to become so far per¬ 
verted as to throw a sufficiency of gall into the circulation to produce 
a jaundiced eye and optical illusion, and hence we may account for 



140 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

party. 1 He regarded them in a twofold aspect, 
as offering two modes of resistance, one constitu¬ 
tional and the other revolutionary; the former 
including all the legal means of arresting a politi¬ 
cal evil under the federal system, such as declara¬ 
tions, remonstrances, and joint protests by the 
states; the latter, extra-constitutional in char¬ 
acter, recognizing the right of a state to secede 
when all these regular and constitutional means 
had failed. This explanation was said to be in 
exact conformity with James Madison’s letter of 
August, 1830, interpreting those oft-cited resolu¬ 
tions. 

In the same oration Drayton took special 
delight in tearing the Exposition to pieces. In 
the first place, he supported the Exposition, by an 
elaborate argument, in its assertion that the tariff 
acts of 1824 and 1828 were unconstitutional, but 

a political phenomenon which has perfectly confounded to all intents 
and purposes the uninfected portion of the citizens of our own and 
other states. Thus to an eye to which the tariff and internal im¬ 
provements appear perfectly constitutional and expedient, after a 
paroxysm of nullification, these laws appear so palpably unconstitu¬ 
tional and oppressive that the most perfect patriotism consists in 
resisting them. This strange, and to our state novel, disease appears 
to exert a pantomimic influence upon its victims; hence whenever one 
becomes nullified he recognizes in his most perfect previous likeness 
a capapie lory.” 

1 Patriot, July 29, 1831; also published in pamphlet form. 


A Year of Campaigning 


141 

he did not agree that previous to these acts there 
was no case in point of similar unconstitutional 
legislation. 

As to the enumeration of the evils resulting from 
the tariff, he felt that the Exposition was greatly in 
error. He attacked the position that the southern 
people as producers of the great export staples 
bore the bulk of the burden of the tariff. Only 
in so far as they were consumers of articles upon 
which there were import duties were they bearers 
of the tariff burden. Therefore, since the compu¬ 
tation of the share of the contributions of the two 
sections to the general treasury was based upon 
the assumption that protective duties fell upon 
exports, the calculation was wrong. 

As for the remedy recommended to prevent the 
operation of the tariff acts upon the state of 
South Carolina — nullification — he had no sym¬ 
pathy with it, because if such a doctrine were 
reduced to practice the Union could not subsist. 
He agreed that the states were sovereign in many 
respects, but emphatically denied that these in¬ 
cluded, by “clear implication,” a veto on the 
action of the general government on contested 
points of authority. That the Constitution sanc¬ 
tioned such a remedy to prevent the encroachment 


142 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of the general government on the reserved rights 
of the states, he would by no means admit, because 
if a state regarded a law as unconstitutional and 
could effectively interpose its veto, the very 
tribunal authorized by the Constitution to decide 
finally whether a law was constitutional would be 
ousted from its jurisdiction, and the judicial 
power of the United States would be nugatory 
where it was most essential. 1 

Furthermore, he could not understand how the 
supporters of the Exposition could, with it, admit 
that the Supreme Court had an indispensable and 
constitutional power to nullify the acts of state 
legislatures which, in its opinion, conflicted with 
the powers delegated to the general government, 
and yet claim, with the Exposition, that a state 
had a constitutional right to “control the action 
of the general government on contested points of 
authority,” whenever, in the opinion of the state, 
the action of the general government conflicted 
with the powers delegated to it. The sovereign 
states entered into a compact, which was the 

1 There was a tendency on the part of most of the Union men to 
ascribe to the Exposition the assertion that nullification was pro¬ 
vided for in the Constitution, and to ascribe to the Constitution the 
statement that the federal courts were to settle all questions of con¬ 
stitutionality. 


A Year of Campaigning 


M3 


federal Constitution; the powers which they re¬ 
served they might still exercise unhindered; but 
such as they granted to the federal government 
they could not exercise nor resume, as long as 
that government lasted. 

The argument that the Exposition recom¬ 
mended not an unqualified but a suspensive veto, 
until the power in question should be sanctioned 
by an amendment to the Constitution, Drayton 
pronounced meaningless. If a state could control 
the action of the general government on contested 
points of authority under the Constitution, it 
could do so also under an amendment. Even 
though an amendment were passed for a specific 
purpose, difference of interpretation might arise, 
as had happened in the case of the Eleventh 
Amendment. The state veto must end in civil 
war, and could not be a peaceful remedy, unless 
the President should fail to perform his duty. As 
to secession and a dissolution of the Union, he 
believed it not only impossible but unworthy of 
contemplation. 

There was even a lingering defense of the tariff 
in the state, both as to its constitutionality and 
as to its expediency. 1 The Union and State 

1 Gazette, August 23, 1831. 


144 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Rights Gazette , which was established in Charleston 
in the early fall of 1831, was an avowed pro-tariff 
paper. The Southern Patriot denied that this 
sheet printed the doctrines of the Union party, 
but a Mercury writer said that it looked very much 
as though it must be an orthodox Union paper. 1 
“A Party Concerned” 2 answered the Patriot's 
hasty denial and contended that the paper was 
what it purported to be, a collection of essays 
from the daily Union papers, reprinted for con¬ 
venient circulation in the country to combat the 
heresy of nullification; and that the Patriot was 
apparently yielding more credence to the ex¬ 
aggerated misstatements of the Nullifiers about 
the evils of the tariff than the Union party would 
admit. This writer felt positive that half of the 
party regarded these exaggerated misstatements 
as mere humbug. 

For instance, he asked, who believed the non¬ 
sense that the planters were plundered by the 
government of forty bales of cotton out of every 
hundred ? Who believed that the hard times of 
1823 were caused by the tariff of 1824? “Who 

1 Mercury, August 27, 1831. 

2 Charleston Gazette (not to be confused with this Union and State 
Rights Gazette), August 29, 1831. 


A Year of Campaigning 


T 45 


but a gull” believed that the tariff had reduced 
the price of cotton from 20 cents to 10 cents ? 
Surely not as many as one-fourth of the Union 
party believed such nonsense, for they knew that 
it was a trick of the Nullifiers to say that the citi¬ 
zens of the state were unanimous as to the evil 
and differed only as to the remedy. Surely the 
Union party would not yield this point, for that 
meant the yielding of the whole question and the 
precipitation of civil war. If it were true that the 
tariff was palpably unconstitutional and that it 
had reduced the South to hopeless ruin, what 
mattered it whether the remedy was constitu¬ 
tional or not ? The only question a sensible man 
would then ask would be as to its effectiveness. 

The truth as to the constitutionality of the 
tariff was that the best and wisest men differed; 
but as to the evil results of the present tariff the 
adherents of the Union party unanimously agreed 
that the results had been grossly exaggerated and 
that when they were compared to the evil effects 
of disunion they were as “the dust in the balance.” 
The Union men therefore were opposed to nulli¬ 
fication because it was a remedy worse than the 
disease, and every man who would make the 
disease out to be worse than the remedy justified 


146 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the remedy. This was a fair statement of the 
position of the majority of the Union party as 
to what they believed to be misstatements about 
the evils of the tariff. The pro-tariff complexion 
of the Union and State Rights Gazette represented 
only a small minority of the Union party. 

In preparation for the Fourth of July the Union 
men at Charleston held a meeting on May 30 in 
“Seyle’s Long Room,” their usual gathering- 
place, and made plans for festivities of their own 
separate from those of the State Rights party. 
At once the papers on both sides were flooded with 
a discussion of this new departure from the usual 
custom of having one united celebration. 1 The 
Courier , Gazette , and Patriot of course supported 
the Union project, but the Mercury 2 denounced 
the idea of making the celebration of that day a 
mere party measure, and pleaded for the continu¬ 
ance of the custom by which on “the glorious 
Fourth” the various societies and military corps 
of every political complexion, repaired to the 
churches after the parade, accompanied by their 
fellow-citizens, to offer prayers and hear orations 
in celebration of the achievements of the fathers. 

1 Gazette, May 31, June 1, 1831. 

2 Mercury, May 31, June 1, 1831. 


A Year of Campaigning 


147 


The Union press answered that the new departure 
meant simply that the people had resolved no 
longer to be insulted at every recurrence of the 
Fourth of July by orations and toasts violative 
of every national and historic principle. On the 
last two anniversaries of Independence Day, they 
declared, the nullification orators had poured out 
expressions of their hatred for the Union party, 
and their toasts and speeches had teemed with the 
most rancorous abuse. The supporters of the 
Union party had simply determined that they 
would no longer be abused to their faces and that 
Carolina was no longer to be thus misrepresented. 1 

As the day of celebration approached, party 
spirit ran so high that there was talk of the possi¬ 
bility of July 4 being a bloody day; but such idle 
talk was confined mainly to the Mercury . 2 Ad¬ 
herents of the State Rights party, not to be out¬ 
done, made as extensive preparations as their 
opponents, and invited all the societies and 
volunteer corps of the city to celebrate with them. 
The three leading societies of the city were the 
Revolutionary, Cincinnati, and ’76 societies. 
The State Rights party had gained control of the 

1 Courier, June 2, 29, 1831; Gazette, June 6, 14. 

2 Courier, July 27, 1831; Gazette, June 14. 


148 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


last two and refused the Union men a chance to 
be heard. These societies now became strictly 
partisan. 

When the day arrived, each party had its 
parade, prayers, orations, reading of original odes, 
etc., and each ended the day with a dinner. That 
of the Union party lasted from 4 : 00 to 10 : 00 p . m ., 
with speeches and toasts of such length and num¬ 
ber as to testify to great devotion to the cause on 
the part of those who would sit through to the end. 1 
No clash of arms occurred, but from this day forth 
party lines were most severely drawn. Even the 
ladies had a chance to express their party affilia¬ 
tions at a “soiree” given for them on July 6 by 
the Union party in its “Bower”; 2 and the State 
Rights party, also recognizing the feminine 
influence, had an affair for its own ladies. 

All over the state the customary festivities of 
July 4 were characterized by much party feeling. 
The toasts, both “regular” and “volunteer,” 3 dealt 
with the political situation. The Charleston cele¬ 
bration attracted much attention and the speeches 

1 Life and Times of C. G. Memminger, by H. D. Capers, has a 
reprint of the proceedings of the celebration by the Union party. 

2 The Bower was a special building ioo by 150 feet, built by the 
party for its celebration; see Courier, July 8, 1831. 

3 The regular toasts appeared on the printed program. 


A Year of Campaigning 


149 


were widely quoted. As an example of what politi¬ 
cal capital was made of some of these speeches, 
the Camden Beacon held that because Hugh S. 
Legar6 said that the tariff was not oppressive, and 
because Petigru said that it was constitutional, 
the Submission party of the state was one with 
Daniel Webster, New England, Tariff, Federal 
party. All this was deduced from Legare’ sasser- 
tion that the decay of the lower country, the fall 
of the price of cotton, and the comparative un¬ 
productiveness of slave labor had no connection 
with the tariff. 1 The Journal immediately and 
justly denied that he and his party were in favor 
of the tariff. 

The committee in charge of the Union celebra¬ 
tion in Charleston had invited President Jackson 
to be present on the Fourth. The President re¬ 
plied to the invitation on June 14 in a letter com¬ 
mending the party. He made some reference to 
those who might pursue a course not so trustful 
in the justice of the national councils, which was 
interpreted by the State Rights party as a threat 
of coercion to intimidate the people and render 
them less disposed to “execute their most sacred 

1 Beacon , July 19, 1831. Legar6’s speech is given in The Writings 
of Hugh Swinton Legare, edited by his sister. f 


150 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


duty.” Accordingly, the State Rights men, after 
the publication of this letter, held meetings ail 
over the state to reprimand the President and to 
refute his insinuation that the State Rights and 
Free Trade party opposed the Union. 1 Colleton 
district, which eagerly seized such opportunities, 
at a meeting at Walterboro denounced Jack¬ 
son’s threat of coercion as a gross assertion of 
tyrannical power. Thereafter most of the meet¬ 
ings held to form State Rights associations took 
occasion to censure the President. 

As late as October 15, 1830, the general im¬ 
pression appears to have been that the Jackson 
administration was entirely in sympathy with the 
Nullifiers. 2 Some of the Union men saw, however, 
that though the Nullifiers were thus confident and 
called themselves the only true Jackson men, their 
doctrines, if e^er put into practice, would bring 
disgrace to his name; this he must see before long, 
and then the delusion of the Nullifiers would be 
banished. The idea, however, that the Unionists 

1 Mercury, July 7, 20, August 4, 26, 1831; Messenger, July 20, 
August 24. 

2 Poinsett Papers; letter with this notation: “Confidential— 
Copy of a letter from a Gentleman dated Charleston, October 15, 
1830.” 


A Year of Campaigning 151 

were not in favor at Washington and that the 
Nullifiers were supported by the President and 
the Secretary of State, paralyzed the strength of 
the Union well-wishers for a time. A letter from 
Jackson under date of October 26, 1830/ shows 
that at that very time he supposed that everyone 
acquainted with him knew that he was opposed 
to the nullification doctrine, as he had repeatedly 
declared himself so. Other assurances soon came 
to the Union party that the President was in 
sympathy with it, and by the end of February 
the press began to reflect the true position of the 
President. 1 2 

There were slight beginnings of the presidential 
campaign early in 1830, 3 but the campaign began 
more in earnest in the next year, after the publi¬ 
cation of the Jackson-Calhoun correspondence 
over the Seminole affair. It was then not long 
before some State Rights papers showed coldness 
toward the General, and after his letter of June 14 
nearly all were his openly avowed opponents. 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Robert Oliver, October 26, sent 
to Poinsett on October 28 by R. M. Gibbes, of Baltimore. 

2 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, January 29, February 12, 
1831. Courier, January 22, February 23. 

3 Mountaineer, April 10, 1830; Mercury, April 22. 


152 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Union papers, of course, were all his admirers 
and supporters. 1 

The rupture between Jackson and Calhoun was 
caused by the story of an incident which occurred 
in a cabinet meeting in 1818, after Jackson had 
seized some Spanish posts in Florida and had 
placed the United States government in an embar¬ 
rassing situation. Calhoun had suggested that 
Jackson had transcended his orders in conducting 
the campaign and that in all such cases a court 
of inquiry was indispensable to preserve the dis¬ 
cipline of the army and maintain the dignity 
of the government. The proposal was not 
sustained and Jackson did not know until near 
the middle of 1830 that Calhoun had made it. 
When Calhoun admitted that he had suggested 
the court of inquiry, Jackson became at once and 
forever the foe of the man whom he had toasted 
at a public dinner not long before as the “noblest 
work of God.” 2 3 Even after the split between 
Jackson and Calhoun, however, some State 
Rights men tried to show that friendship to Cal- 

1 Journal, January 8, May 14, July 16, November 12, 1831; 

Mercury, February 24, March 29; Messenger, March 9; Mountaineer, 
August 27, September 3. 

3 William J. Grayson’s Memoirs. MSS. 


A Year of Campaigning 


iS3 

houn did not necessitate hostility to Jackson, for 
they feared an evil even worse than the General 
in the person of Henry Clay. 1 

Jackson’s letter of June 14 marks an important 
point in the relations of the President to the South 
Carolina factions. It will be remembered that 
the State Rights party in October of 1828 added 
to its name that of Jackson and called itself the 
State Rights and Jackson party. 2 In May, 1831, 
the use of Jackson’s name in its title was dis¬ 
continued by this party and the term Free Trade 
substituted; this dropping of the name of Jack- 
son, it was alleged, had nothing to do with the 
trouble between Jackson and Calhoun over the 
Seminole campaign, nor did it mean that the party 
was unwilling to support the General for the 
presidency; but it was done simply because the 
party had concluded that it was idle to look 
to any President or to anything but “the un¬ 
daunted spirit of the state.” At any rate, 
whereas the State Rights men had been loud 
in praise of Jackson, after the publication of 

1 Mercury, April 16, 1831. There were also a few sporadic 
efforts to push forward the ticket of Jackson and Calhoun. See 
Beacon, May 10, 1831. 

2 In the Mercury of June 21, 1831, “Phocion” wrote a review of 
party history. 


154 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the letter of June 14 they became his most per¬ 
sistent foes. 

While the State Rights party was so active in 
forming its associations during the latter half of 
1831, the Union party held meetings almost as 
numerous, though it did not organize societies 
as did the Nullifiers. The Unionists took great 
delight in denouncing the Nullification clubs as 
even worse than the original Jacobin Club. 1 

'A writer, “Furioso,” in the Courier, August io, 1831, thus 
characterized the way this system of clubs worked: “What a fine 
thing is a well organized party. How beautifully its different parts 
play into each other. The big Nullifiers in Charleston have a meet¬ 
ing; organize a club; pass resolutions and huzzah; they then send 
circulars to the little Nullifiers in the interior and beg them to make 
haste and kick up a dust at the country Court Houses. The circular 
arrives; the lawyers at the Court House dash off and bring together 
the constables, the hangers-on at the taverns, and a dozen others; 
they meet in the court room and flourish a resolution or two; de¬ 
nounce General Jackson; organize a political club; get some old 
fellow to come out; call him a Revolutionary worthy; vote thanks 
to one another; and send their proceedings to the Mercury, counter¬ 
signed by Tom, the Pres., and Jack Copias, the Sec. And now behold 
the columns of the Mercury, the day after the receipt of the proceed¬ 
ings. Oh, what congratulations! What rejoicings it pretends to 
make! Pieces appear, headed with the words ‘Glorious News,’ and 
‘Interesting Proceedings,’ and all that kind of thing, and the people 
are gravely told that these are evidences of public opinion. O 
temporal O mores! how this world is given to gulling; what 
authentic evidences of public opinion!!” 

Another writer, in the Mountaineer, May 26, 1832, satirized the 
workings of the association thus: “Already we have a selected body 


A Year of Campaigning 


i55 


Their resolutions expressed complete faith in Jack- 
son, opposition to the tariff, and the determination 
to stand by the Union until the only alternative 
should be dissolution or the loss of civil liberty. 
They incidentally expressed the hope and belief 
that the Philadelphia anti-tariff convention would 
lead to results and show the value of constitutional 
opposition to the tariff. 1 

The fall city elections in Charleston were 
eagerly anticipated as a test of party strength. 
Each party nominated a complete ticket, of 
intendant and twelve wardens, and the election 
was declared the most exciting ever held. 3 The 

whose resolutions are law, and whose measures are conceived and 
dictated by a half dozen men. The Association was not elected by 
the people, but selected by the agents of a few leaders. Their resolu¬ 
tions are always the work of the chiefs and only submitted after full 
consideration to the adoption of the Association. When adopted, 
they are the law of the land, in a community which has always 
subjected law and legislation to public opinion. This process is 
wonderfully efficient. The leaders resolve; the Association propa¬ 
gates; and the people follow. Who in the Association dare oppose 
Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus ? If there be o'ne so disposed, he must 
feel that opposition would be suicidal. And who so bold among the 
people as to oppose the views of the Association ? If there be any, 
they are damned as submission men.” 

1 Courier, August 1, 10, September 15, 16, 30, November 10, 18, 
25, 1831; Journal, August 13, December 3; Mercury, August 20, 22; 
Mountaineer, September 10, 24, October 8; Gazette, September 15. 

2 The vote the year before was thought large, with about 1,600, 
but this year it reached 1,978. 



156 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

result proved to be a decisive victory for the State 
Rights ticket. 1 This was hailed by the State 
Rights party men as a great triumph, and perhaps 
with reason, in view of the elections of the previous 
year. In their natural jubilation they interpreted 
this victory to mean that the people would no 
longer be gulled by the Unionist prophecies of a 
disastrous result of this plan. They did not con¬ 
sider that the election proved that the people 
advocated nullification, as the Union party had 
said such a result would declare, but they rejoiced 
that Charleston had intimated a refusal to con¬ 
demn nullification or any other measure which the 
state might find it expedient to adopt. The State 
Rights committee itself published a plea for 
moderation on the part of the members of that 
party, to show a love of peace and order, that 
they might keep the confidence of the people. 2 
The Union party immediately held a rally, re¬ 
solved never to cease to oppose nullification, and 
claimed that Charleston was by no means ready 
to sanction an act of nullification by the legisla- 

1 The vote on intendant was typical of the respective average 
party votes on all the offices. Pinckney, heading the State Rights 
and Free Trade ticket, received 1,040; Pringle, heading the State 
Rights and Union ticket, received 932 ( Courier , August 30, September 
7, 12, 1831; Mercury, September 6, 7). 

2 Mercury, September 7, 1831; Patriot, September 6. 


A Year of Campaigning 


I 57 


ture, which it was said was being projected. Some 
of the Union men excused their defeat by saying 
that they were simply caught napping, over¬ 
confident of their majority. It was admitted, 
too, that they needed an improved organization. 1 

Although elections for the state legislature came 
only in the even years, the death of William Aiken 
caused a vacancy in the Charleston delegation 
which was to be filled in October. Both parties 
made strong efforts to win this place. The Union 
party succeeded in rallying its forces somewhat, 
for they were beaten this time by the small major¬ 
ity of eight. 2 

Politics was by no means a clean business even 
in that day, for there were charges of election 
frauds on both sides, and both parties by resolu¬ 
tions asked the state legislature to take measures 
to promote the purity of elections. Both were 
guilty, but each thought the other more so. 3 

1 Courier, September 7, 12,1831; Gazette, September 9, October 13. 

2 Courier, October 4, 13, 1831; Patriot, October 12, 13; Gazette, 
October 13. 

3 Patriot, October 13, 1831; Courier, October 21. The legislature, 
when it met, passed a resolution declaratory of the qualifications of 
electors within the election district of Charleston which would exclude 
quite a number of northern and eastern merchants who carried on 
their business in Charleston, the great majority of whom were 
attached to the Union party (Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, 
December 27, 1831). 


158 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Since the membership of the legislature would 
not be altered in the coming session, there was 
little expectation that there would be any change 
in the state’s position. Before the legislature 
met there was some talk of bringing up the con¬ 
vention question again, and some few, bolder than 
others, even suggested that the State Rights 
majority of the legislature go ahead without the 
call of a convention and nullify the tariff law by 
legislative act; but the folly of either of these 
procedures was admitted by most of the State 
Rights or Convention party. 

Again the cry was raised of hope for relief from 
the next session of Congress. There was a possi¬ 
bility, as even some Conventionists admitted, 
that a dispute as to the division of the spoils 
might cause the American-system supporters of 
the new Congress to split and to yield some¬ 
what on the tariff. 1 The Conventionists insisted, 
however, that even that would furnish no guaranty 
against the future, whenever a combination of 
interests should again arise and push it forward. 
By the time the legislature met, late in Novem¬ 
ber, the Nullification party as a whole seemed 
to have determined, perhaps “in some solemn 

1 Mercury, November 28, 1831; Messenger, July 27, October 5. 


A Year of Campaigning 


i59 


convocation of the Club,” to await the action of 
the next Congress. The governor’s message, more 
moderate than the Union party had expected, 
recommended the wait-awhile policy, and this 
immediately quieted what little fear there was of 
imminent conflict with the general government. 1 

On the evening of November 29 there was held 
in the Senate room a meeting “of the members of 
the legislature friendly to the re-election of General 
Jackson.” It was a Union party move, but the 
State Rights party members attended. Daniel E. 
Huger presided, and James L. Petigru offered 
resolutions nominating Jackson for re-election, 
thus causing a heated debate. Many of the State 
Rights men spoke against the resolutions, on the 
ground that they were premature, in view of the 
struggle in which South Carolina was engaged 
with the general government. They admitted 
that they preferred Jackson to Clay or Wirt, but 
they wanted South Carolina to keep aloof for a 
time. Finally the meeting agreed to adjourn, so 
that those favorable to the nomination could 
remain, while those who opposed the nomination 
could assemble at another place. The opponents 

1 Journal, November 26,1831; Courier, December 5,10. Poinsett 
Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, December 27. 


i6o Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

went to the hall of the House, organized, and 
adopted a resolution that it was inexpedient for 
South Carolina to participate in the presidential 
campaign. The sixty-six who remained and voted 
for the Jackson resolutions authorized the appoint¬ 
ment of eleven delegates to the Baltimore con¬ 
vention of the next May. The ninety-six of the 
opposition asserted that their chief reason for 
objection was that the Submission men were 
trying to use the presidential campaign as a means 
of diverting attention from the crucial issue. 1 

A plot of the two caucuses shows a distribution 
virtually the same as that of the previous year on 
the convention question. With but few excep¬ 
tions in the state it is quite probable that the party 
division as to nullification applied also to the 
question of the presidency. 2 

The State Rights men had planned to issue a 
stinging rebuke to the President in the form of a 
set of resolutions denouncing his June 14 letter, 
and the reports of the committees on federal rela¬ 
tions were made according to this understanding. 
But the President’s message, satisfactory to the 

1 Mercury, December 3, 9, 1831; Courier, December 13, 28; 
Beacon, December 6. 

2 See Map IV and p. 107, n. 3. 


A Year of Campaigning 


161 


South Carolina statesmen as to tariff reform, 
was received in time to gain for the President a 
commendatory resolution along with his condem¬ 
nation. The Union men attempted to have the 



Map IV.—Jackson and Anti-Jackson caucuses, 1831 


whole course of the President approved, but 
failed . 1 During the debates on these resolutions 
the doctrine of nullification was often discussed. 
On the whole, the Union men were glad that the 

1 The vote was State Rights 63, Union 56 ( Mercury, December 17, 
1831). 























































162 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

legislature adjourned without doing anything 
more rash than to pass resolutions in relation to 
the President’s letter. 1 

South Carolina was thus left where she had 
stood the year before, awaiting the results of the 
congressional session. The State Rights men 
made much of their display of forbearance, and 
justified it on the ground that South Carolina 
was in duty bound to await the outcome of the 
memorial of the Philadelphia anti-tariff conven¬ 
tion, since she had been so active in that conven¬ 
tion and since one of her sons, Judge William 
Harper, was to be one of its special messengers to 
Congress. 2 The State Rights men were probably 
honest in professing that the state’s position was 
what they desired. Be that as it may, the fact 
remains that the State Rights party had prac¬ 
tically no other position open to its choice. Until 
a new legislature was elected in which the State 
Rights party should control the two-thirds 
majority required for calling a convention, the 
state was not likely to be forced into a more 
advanced position. 

1 Mountaineer, December 31, 1831. Poinsett Papers: Drayton to 
Poinsett, December 27. 

2 Mercury , January 4, 1832. 


A Year of Campaigning 


163 


Before leaving Columbia the Union members of 
the legislature got together and published an 
address stating anew and in a concise form the 
position of that party. As usual they admitted 
that nullification was a revolutionary right, but 
denied its constitutionality; they admitted the 
oppressions of the tariff, but denied that they 
were enough to justify revolution. 1 

1 Mercury, January 6, 1832; Post, January 10. 


CHAPTER V 


THE NULLIFIERS CAPTURE THE LEGISLATURE 

(1832) 

In the early weeks of the new year the partisans 
awaited developments. A protectionist conven¬ 
tion at New York offset the low-tariff demonstra¬ 
tion at Philadelphia, and Congress appeared to 
lend a willing ear to Clay’s plan for revising the 
tariff on a basis of but trifling reductions and for 
spending a large part of the revenue for internal 
improvements to benefit the West. 

This program promised an indefinite prolonga¬ 
tion of the government’s previous policy . 1 The 
convention of the State Rights associations which 
met at Charleston in February denounced Clay’s 
project as involving a systematic exploitation of 
the South by the seizure of half its earnings and 
the distribution of the proceeds in such a way as to 
double northern profits. Nullification was easily 
preached from that text . 2 

The memorial of the Philadelphia convention, 
with an additional one by Judge William Harper 

1 Mercury, January 4, 21, 1832; Messenger, January n. 

2 Mercury, February 27, 1832. 

164 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 165 

and Professor Thomas R. Dew, was duly presented 
to Congress, but the course of the debates in the 
two houses gave strong indication that no item 
of protection would be remitted. The Committee 
on Manufactures, to which all the memorials and 
bills had been referred, at length reported a bill 
closely in accordance with Clay’s wishes. This, 
of course, to the minds of the malcontents capped 
the climax of oppression. 1 As an added ground 
for indignation it was pointed out that Congress 
would probably pass the “mammoth pension bill,” 
more to increase expenditures than to reward the 
patriots of the Revolution. The State Rights 
party was rapidly coming to agree with John C. 
Calhoun that though South Carolina, by inspiring 
a fear of interposition, had made some impression, 
it would not be sufficient to compel the oppressor 
to relax his grasp; no change in the attitude of the 
government would come, nor could the necessity 
of action be impressed on the other states, until 
South Carolina should interpose. 2 


1 Mercury, March 6, April 5, 6, 1832; Messenger, March 21, 
April 4. 

2 Messenger, April n, 1832. Calhoun Corespondence: Calhoun 
to J. E. Calhoun, December 25, 1831; Calhoun to A. Burt, Decem¬ 
ber 27, 1831; Calhoun to R. K. Cralle, April 15, 1832. 


166 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


The bill known by the name of Secretary of the 
Treasury McLane next occupied the attention of 
Congress, but it met no favor with the State Rights 
men; the Union men, however, seemed to accept it 
as satisfactory. William Drayton reported from 
Washington that the difficulty of securing a tariff 
adjustment had been greatly increased because the 
delegations from South Carolina and Georgia, with 
the exception of James Blair, Thomas R. Mitchell, 
and himself, were for maintaining the abstract 
principle of free trade by placing all duties at a 
uniformly low level, whether imposed upon pro¬ 
tected or unprotected articles. He himself was 
striving for a medium between the two extremes — 
between uniform duties of 12 per cent and 15 per 
cent and the then existing high protective duties 
— and he believed that if the South Carolina con¬ 
gressmen would show any spirit of compromise, 
something might be accomplished to allay the 
excitement. But, after working several weeks in 
Congress, Drayton lost all hope; he felt that the 
Nullifiers were irresistible, and would remain so 
until the South Carolina citizens were brought 
to their senses by some tremendous blow. 1 

1 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, March 19, April 5, 13, 
May 2, 1832. Patriot, April 4. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 167 

When McLane’s scheme of a tariff was pre¬ 
sented, the Gazette pronounced it a compromise 
to which neither party could in reason oppose a 
single objection. It brought down the rate of 
duties to a scale to which, in the early stage of the 
controversy, the anti-tariffites gave a ready assent. 
This assent was given, however, only when they 
believed it impossible to get their demands satis¬ 
fied. Believing that the majority of the Nullifiers 
cared less for the public than for their own per¬ 
sonal good and were greedy for the clamor by 
which they maintained some little notoriety, this 
editor said that he would not be surprised if they 
should reject the very boon which they had once 
prayed for, and, taking new ground, refuse to 
accede to any measure which did not do away 
with the principle of protection and repeal the 
tariff entirely. They would certainly demand 
something too extravagant for attainment in order 
to continue to have a subject for clamorous excite¬ 
ment and agitation, which, while elevating indi¬ 
viduals, had served most completely to prostrate 
the country and bring about that misery which 
they had been pleased to ascribe to any other than 
the proper cause. 1 


1 Gazette, May 8, 1832. 


168 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

This prediction as to the demands of the 
Nullifiers proved in large measure true. They 
soon rejected the McLane bill on the grounds 
that it maintained the principle of protec¬ 
tion to its full extent and that it was an open 
avowal that the American system was to be 
adhered to at all hazards. They believed that the 
Unionists accepted it simply because of an eager¬ 
ness to seize on anything which would have the 
remotest tendency to prevent state interposition . 1 

Next came the Adams bill, as a report from the 
Committee on Manufactures, which the State 
Rights men said was worse than the McLane bill . 2 
The news that the Adams bill had been enacted 
reached Charleston while the two parties were 
holding their Fourth of July celebrations. When 
the Union orator, at the close of his address, 
announced “the gratifying intelligence” that 
“Mr. Adams’ Bill” had passed, the news was 
received with a degree of enthusiasm that evinced 
the deep anxiety of the assembly for the preserva¬ 
tion of the Union. When the State Rights 
orator, at the close of his address, also informed 
his audience of the passage of the bill and said 

1 Mercury,May 8,9,10, 1832; Post ,May 10; Messenger, May 16,23. 

2 Mercury, June 1, 1832; Messenger, June 16, 18. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 169 

emphatically that when such a bill as that was 
offered to them as a “concession,” their only 
answer would be that of the American Congress 
when Great Britain offered conciliation, “We 
have counted the cost, and find nothing so intol¬ 
erable as voluntary slavery,” the sentiment was 
received with deafening applause . 1 

Three South Carolinians voted for the passage 
of the bill—William Drayton, James Blair, and 
Thomas R. Mitchell. The State Rights press 
denounced them as “betrayers of the state.” 
The Unionists did all in their power to get the 
bill accepted by the South and South Carolina. 
They pointed to what they called material reduc¬ 
tions and remarked that a total abandonment of 
the system could not be expected at once. Dray¬ 
ton, Blair, and Mitchell were faithfully defended 
for wisely and patriotically accepting a com¬ 
promise and thus alleviating an evil which they 
knew they could not entirely cure. The bill, 
they said, was to be merely temporary, and would 
soon be followed by new victories . 2 

1 Mercury, July 7, 1832. 

2 Mercury, July 7, 16, 20, 21, 1832; Courier, July 6, 9, 21, 28, 
August 1, September 18, October 26; Patriot, July 11, 14, 27, August 
24; Journal, July 14, 21; Mountaineer, July 28, August 4, Sep¬ 
tember 22, October 13. 


170 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Many analyses of the bill were made to show 
that it had or had not reduced the tariff in such 
a way as to relieve the South. George McDuffie, 
indorsed by the State Rights press, asserted that 
the act just passed would take off duties amounting 
to between four and five millions, of which only 
about $844,000 would be taken from the pro¬ 
tected articles; but that the new requirement of 
cash payments would, on the other hand, add 
twice as much to the burden of the South as would 
be taken from it by the reduction in rates. And, 
said the Mercury , this was called “compromise,” 
“glorious news,” and hailed as a measure highly 
acceptable and beneficial to the South. 1 

Just before leaving for home, the members of 
the South Carolina delegation in Congress, with 
the exception of the three who had voted for the 
Adams bill, drew up an “Address to the people of 
South Carolina.” They reviewed the situation 
and concluded that all hopes had now indeed 
vanished. The signers 2 regarded the protective 
system as the settled policy of the country. They 

1 Mercury, July 28, August 24, 28, 1832. 

2 Robert Y. Hayne, Stephen D. Miller, George McDuffie, 
Warren R. Davis, J. M. Felder, J. K. Griffin, W. T. Nuckolls, R. W. 
Barnwell ( Messenger , August 1, 1832). 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 171 

left the question of remedy to the sovereign 
power of the state. The State Rights men 
rejoiced to see among the signers two men, Felder 
and Nuckolls, who had been regarded as Union 
party men, and who, not long since, had been 
among those who hoped for relief from Congress. 

The Union men and editors who were willing 
to accept the Adams bill, at least temporarily, of 
course came in for censure and even for vilifi¬ 
cation. 1 The editor of the Gazette was kept busy 
refuting the charge that his paper had been cor¬ 
ruptly influenced by the northern manufacturers 
and northern capital to defeat South Carolina’s 
attempts at redress. The editor admitted, how¬ 
ever, that he was not a believer in free trade in the 
absolute and radical sense of the term as used by 
Nullifiers, who, “between the summer and autum¬ 
nal solstice,” had become such sticklers that they 
were ready “to pull down the custom house, 
. . . . hang the Yankees, burn the manufac¬ 
tories, elect Mr. Calhoun Emperor, make Dr. 
Cooper High Priest of the established church, 
etc.” 2 The Unionists picked to pieces the address 
of the South Carolina congressional delegation 

1 Journal, February 18, 1832; Messenger, February 8. 

2 Gazette, January 6, 7, 1832. 


172 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

(minus Drayton, Blair, and Mitchell) and declared 
that its leading statements were unsupported by 
fact. McDuffie’s calculations to show that the 
new tariff was actually worse than that of 1828, 
which were accepted as proof positive by the 
State Rights party, were examined and declared to 
be full of unpardonable miscalculations. 1 

The State Rights men now abandoned gener¬ 
alities. Before the last state election, in 1830, 
they had merely advocated a convention, some of 
them being willing to follow any plan it might 
adopt, others believing that once a convention 
were secured, nullification could be readily accom¬ 
plished. During the year following their failure 
to get a convention they began gradually to 
preach nullification more openly. Toward the 
end of the year they had decided to rest on their 
oars until Congress furnished them new fuel; but 
by the middle of 1832 nullification became the 
one question, and the fine points, both pro and 
con, were debated as never before. 

Early in 1832 the Union men called attention 
to the fact that the Nullifiers had thrown off the 

1 Courier, July 6, g, 21, 28, August 1, September 18, October 26, 
1832; Patriot, July n, 14, 27, August 24; Journal, July 14, 21; 
Mountaineer, July 28, August 4, September 22, October 13. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 173 

mask and no longer thought it necessary to pre¬ 
tend love for the Union, as Robert J. Turnbull, 
Henry L. Pinckney, James Hamilton, Jr., and 
George McDuffie had done before. The most 
ominous feature of the situation seemed to the 
Union men to be the fact that the Nullifiers 
thought the public mind now prepared for any 
step. It was pointed out, with much truth, that 
the tone and spirit of the State Rights party had 
changed considerably. Its supporters now spoke 
in a bolder language and assumed higher grounds 
than they did twelve or eighteen months pre¬ 
viously. Then the remedy was always spoken of 
as peaceful, and he who thought that the case was 
otherwise was laughed at for his ignorance; now 
it was admitted by many that there was great 
danger involved, but it was argued that dangers 
were as nothing when compared with present 
wrongs and injuries; that a crisis of some sort 
must be forced, and that, be the result disunion 
or revolution, South Carolina could not be worsted. 

Though this was not the precise language of the 
State Rights men, the Unionists said that it was 
surely such as might be inferred from their most 
recent addresses, speeches, and essays. 1 There 

1 Mountaineer, March 17, 1832; Gazette, March 2. 


174 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

appeared to be two parties in the country deter¬ 
mined to bring the government to its grave—on 
the one side, the ultra-tariff party, with Henry 
Clay at its head, and on the other, the Nullifi¬ 
cation party, led by John C. Calhoun, were reveal¬ 
ing their principles in a way that left no further 
chance of deception. 1 At least this was true by 
the middle of July, when the Nullifiers were 
universally espousing the address of Robert Barn¬ 
well Smith (Rhett) on the occasion of the issuance 
of the “Walterborough Manifesto” on July 4. 
No longer was it pretended that nullification was 
necessarily peaceful; it was freely admitted that 
civil war or disunion might result from it, indeed, 
would result, unless Congress and the states came 
to an agreement. 2 Even though admitting that 
revolution might ensue, the Nullifiers treated the 
perils, the bloodshed and desolation of such an 
outcome, as matters of no moment, and boasted 


1 Journal, May 26, 1832. 

2 Military companies took partisan titles, the “Jefferson Nulli¬ 
fiers,” for example. The Fourth of July was made a gala day by 
the party all over the state and enthusiasm reached fever heat. 
The ladies of the districts took sides and expressed their approval 
by the presentation of banners with original designs handsomely 
worked or painted ( Mercury , July 2, 6, 21, 25, 31, October 13, 1832; 
Messenger, July n, 19; Mountaineer, September 1). 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 175 

that they would reap from it only a harvest of 
greatness and glory. To the Union men, however, 
such a turn of events seemed to promise nothing 
short of utter ruin. 1 

Some of the Union men quite early predicted 
that such a fate was inevitable, because they 
believed that the State Rights party had the power 
of the state in its hands. 2 All, however, con¬ 
tinued to fight hard for the cause, not willing to 
acknowledge defeat until the fall elections were 
over and had gone against them. They asserted 
that the veto by a state, proposed as a check upon 
“implied powers” itself involved a more unwar¬ 
rantable “implied power” on the part of the state. 
The State Rights men replied that nullification was 
a substantive power which the states had never 
surrendered; it was an inherent, original right, 
and depended neither on implication nor con¬ 
struction of the Constitution. 3 

The Union men affirmed that the doctrine was 
new, speculative, and but lately developed. The 

1 Mercury, July 14, 1832; Courier , July 28. 

2 Journal, April 21, 1832. As election time approached, the 
State Rights men thought caution a better policy, and generally 
refrained from warlike expressions. They were accused by the 
Union men of trying to hide the fact that on the election was really 
to depend the fate of the Union ( Mountaineer, September 8, 29). 

3 Mercury, August 18, 1832. 


176 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

State Rights men appealed afresh to the Virginia 
and Kentucky resolutions. They had used Madi¬ 
son as an authority until he denied that nulli¬ 
fication was intended in any of the resolutions of 
which he was the author. They still clung to 
Jefferson, however, and told how Congressman 
Warren R. Davis had procured from among that 
statesman’s manuscripts a document which proved 
that he favored nullification. But even if the 
theory were new, they said, it must be admitted 
that the practice had often been successful. 1 

The Union men said that it was inconceivable 
to them how the language of Jefferson, that “nulli¬ 
fication is the rightful remedy,” could be con¬ 
strued to mean anything else than combined or 
united nullification by at least a majority if not 
the whole number of the states; that if a state 
could at pleasure arrest the laws of the federal 
government, the union was subverted. The 
State Rights men declared that it was only acts 
of undelegated power that the states might 
resist. Nullification, so far from subverting, 
would strengthen and preserve the Union and 

1 Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Georgia, Vir¬ 
ginia, Kentucky, and other states were said to have used nullifi¬ 
cation successfully ( Courier , July 18, 1832; Mercury, August 18; 
Messenger, March 28; Post, May 16, September 22). 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 177 

was an essential principle for conserving the 
government. 1 

The Union men held that if the right to nullify 
was possessed by one state, it must inhere in all, 
together with the means of enforcing it. But by 
what process could Tennessee nullify the tariff 
acts ? She had no ports which she could declare 
free. The State Rights men answered that, in the 
first place, South Carolina rights did not depend 
on whether Tennessee had a seaport or not; and 
that, secondly, Tennessee could nullify by resolv¬ 
ing to support a seaboard state which nullified. 

The Union men contended that there was no 
such potency in state sovereignty as the Nullifiers 
ascribed to it. It could not, by any action of the 
legislature or convention, confer on the citizen 
any right to resist the legislation of Congress 
which he did not possess without such action. 
The federal court might interfere, and citizens 
resisting the operation of the tariff act might be 
tried for treason against the United States. To 

1 Patriot, March 22, 1832; Courier, May 5, July 3, October 27. 
Said the Nullifiers: “By arresting the operation of unconstitutional 
laws it brings the government back within its legitimate sphere, 
checks the career of profligacy and corruption, removes the causes 
of sectional jealousy and hatred, causes the government to be admin¬ 
istered as it should be, with equity, impartiality, and purity, and thus 
assures the harmony of the people and the durability of the Union.” 


178 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

this it was replied that individual resistance to the 
tariff had proved unavailing before the federal 
court, but that fortunately there was protection 
furnished the citizens in the sovereign power of the 
state. If the people of the state had no right in 
convention to sit in judgment on the tariff and 
to enforce that judgment within their own limits, 
then the people were to be pitied and South Caro¬ 
lina was “a mere petty corporation, without power 
or authority, a mere footstool of the federal gov¬ 
ernment.” 

The citizens of South Carolina owed no alle¬ 
giance to any government on earth which was at 
all incompatible with that which they owed to 
the state. He who committed treason, therefore, 
would be he who opposed the state and sided with 
the government with which she was contending; 
it would be he who attempted to enforce the acts 
which the state had solemnly declared should not 
be executed within her limits. The action of the 
state would not be confined to authorizing her 
citizens to resist the tariff law, but would prevent 
any of them from obeying it. There was potency 
enough in the sovereignty of the state, not only 
to protect those who might resist the tariff against 
the federal court, but to prevent its most devoted 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 179 

supporters from attempting to enforce it. 1 And 
yet the State Rights men continually argued that 
the cry of war and bloodshed as a result of nulli¬ 
fication was all beside the mark, for nullification 
as a remedy had been contemplated and purposely 
left available by the framers of the Constitution, 
and it was one that would procure the redress of 
grievances easily and peaceably. The use of 
force to bring a nullifying state into subjection to 
the general government seemed to them a usurpa¬ 
tion too flagrant to be worthy of contemplation. 2 

A long letter by John C. Calhoun to Governor 
James Hamilton, Jr., dated August 28, 1832, was 
printed widely in the South Carolina press and 
was looked upon by the State Rights party as 
the last word on the theory of nullification. It 
was believed to establish, as clearly and con¬ 
clusively as any political proposition could be 
established, not only the federative character of 
the Union and the right of a state in its sovereign 
capacity to nullify the usurpations of the federal 
government, but also the idleness of the appre¬ 
hension that the central authorities could either 

1 Mercury, August 17, 22, 1832. 

2 Mercury, March 24, July 17, 1832; Messenger, May 30, 
August 29. 


i8o Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

coerce South Carolina into submission, or punish 
her assertion of her rights, by abolishing the 
Charleston port of entry. 1 

To the Union men, however, Calhoun was not 
of unimpeachable authority. His Hamilton letter 
was picked to pieces and every position he took 
severely criticized. These writers agreed with 
Calhoun that the Constitution was a compact 
between states, who were sovereign and free to 
accept or reject it. But they held that through 
its convention each state in accepting the Con¬ 
stitution had bound all its citizens to the new 
obligations of the Union and relinquished all 
authority to determine whether a certain power 
exercised by the general government was or was 
not granted by the Constitution. They denied the 
analogy which Calhoun set up between the federal 
Constitution and a treaty between sovereign 
nations, saying that the ratification of the Con¬ 
stitution had not been a purely international 
transaction; that its completion had effected an 
essential change in the political condition of the 
inhabitants of the states ratifying it; that a 
transfusion or a mutual interchange of rights and 
duties had taken place, commingling, in a political 

1 Mercury, September 26, 1832; Messenger, September 15. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 181 

sense, the contracting parties, both as bodies 
corporate and as individual citizens; and that the 
provisions of the Constitution had created a 
direct and immediate connection between the 
citizens and the general government in all cases 
where such immediate connection could be useful 
or necessary, all assertions to the contrary not¬ 
withstanding. The Union men tried to show the 
absurdity of a contract between the states which 
allowed each state to interpret the obligations 
of the Constitution at all times conformably to 
its own views and interests, whatsoever detriment 
the other states might receive or whatever advan¬ 
tages the nullifying state might derive “from the 
interposition of its uncontrollable self-will, styled 
sovereignty.” Such a right, they said, would 
not have been left by the framers of the Consti¬ 
tution to be assumed by implication. The mem¬ 
bers of the Calhoun faction were great sticklers 
for a strict construction. Very good, said the 
Union men, “let the grant be shown and the 
controversy ended.” 1 

The Courier could account for such a theory 
coming from Calhoun on only two possible 

1 Courier, October 18, 1832, and succeeding issues during the 
next two months; Mountaineer, November 3. 


182 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

grounds. If he were sincere, the doctrine might 
be classed among the aberrations of genius from 
the beaten track of reason and common-sense. 
“It is the property of great minds to give birth 
to great errors; genius is proverbially the subject 
of strange hallucinations. Great men have had 
their followers amidst the wildest vagaries of their 
philosophic madness.” So, possibly, had it been 
with Calhoun; misled by the charms of hypothesis, 
he had ushered nullification into existence with the 
public sanction of his name, and worshipers were 
at once found for this monstrous creation of his 
political frenzy. But perhaps this conclusion 
was reached in a spirit of too great charity. The 
only other explanation, then, must be that Calhoun 
saw the full meaning of the theory and stooped 
to a deception to accomplish some purpose of 
unhallowed ambition or misguided patriotism. 
Was there not reason to believe that he knew full 
well that nullification was essentially revolutionary 
in its nature and that it was nothing more nor 
less that disunion in disguise P 1 

The Union men also answered that surely a 
state could not be both “in and out” of the Union 
with respect to certain powers clearly delegated 

1 Courier, October 27, 1832. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 183 

to the general government without limitation; 
that the state could not say that it would be 
“in” the Union so long as the power was exercised 
to a certain extent, and then say that it would be 
“out” if the power were exercised beyond that 
limit. 1 

The Courier ran a series of speculations on 
treason which caused no little excitement among 
Nullifiers. The editor asserted that citizens as 
individuals, not as a state, owed a double alle¬ 
giance, to the state and to the United States, and 
that the question so frequently put by the Nulli¬ 
fiers with an air of triumph, “Can a sovereign 
state commit treason?” was an idle one; for 
treason was an offense which could be predicated 
of individuals only and had no application what¬ 
ever to communities. He said further that a state 
could not, unless it left the Union, authorize its 
citizens to make war against the United States, 
without subjecting them to the pains and penal¬ 
ties of treason; that is, that state interposition 
could not render lawful that which would be 
treason in individuals; that the citizens of every 
state in the Union were also citizens of the United 
States, and that, until they were absolved from 

1 Patriot, February and March, 1832. 


184 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

their allegiance to the latter, the levying of 
war against the United States, whether under 
individual or state auspices, would amount to 
treason under the Constitution. 1 

The competency of a state convention to dis¬ 
solve the connection of South Carolina with the 
Union was not denied by the Union men; but 
the power of such a convention to annul a law of 
Congress, they argued, could not be sustained. 
Such a convention by assuming judicial functions, 
as it must do in so far construing the Constitution 
of the United States as to pronounce an act of 
Congress contrary to that instrument and there¬ 
fore not binding on the citizens of South Carolina, 
would arrogate to itself a right not given to it 
even by implication or deduced from analogy or 
true theory; for no convention was competent 
to release the citizen from his allegiance to the 
federal laws “in part.” It was within the power 
of such a body to release him from his obligation 
to obey those laws in toto, as well as the great 
organic law, the Constitution, by virtue of which 
they were passed. Was it not preposterous, it 
was asked, to confound an exercise of judicial 
power with the exercise of popular supreme 

1 Courier , August 20, 1832. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 185 

power P 1 The Union men insisted that their 
opponents were forced to admit that a state con¬ 
vention could not go counter to the federal Con¬ 
stitution, and yet that these same opponents tried, 
in a most amusing manner, to justify the incom¬ 
patible power of a state convention to violate the 
federal Constitution and bind the citizens of the 
state to acquiesce in the violation. The Union 
men pronounced the contradiction “too pal¬ 
pable for the subtlest power of sophistry to gloss 
over or disguise.” 2 

1 Patriot, September 18, 1832. 

2 Courier, November 15, 1832. The Mercury and the Courier 
debated this question back and forth until the Courier said: “The 
Mercury very prudently declines the further prosecution of a con¬ 
troversy in which it had involved itself in an inexplicable paradox. 
A Constitution paramount to a convention and yet that convention 
paramount over the citizen in contravention of the Constitution, is 
not a matter of every day comprehension; it can only be under¬ 
stood in certain phases of the moon. If we now understand the 
Mercury aright, a state in convention is only amenable for her mis¬ 
deeds to the law of nations. This is a denial, instead of an admis¬ 
sion of the paramount authority of the federal Constitution, and is 
merely the assertion of the right of revolution or secession. If the 
convention should place the state out of the pale of the Union, there 
would be great reason in the argument of the Mercury, that every 
citizen would be bound to adhere to the state in opposition to every 
other power. But not until then. If that is the intention of the 
Mercury party, then was the Columbia writer very near the truth 
when he proclaimed that the Union was already dissolved” ( Courier, 
November 17, 1832). 


186 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Union men delighted in forecasting the 
practical operation of nullification as the best 
means of showing its certain result. 1 In the first 
place, a state convention was to be called. This 
convention was to declare the tariff unconsti¬ 
tutional and therefore null and void. The legis¬ 
lature was then to pass an act to carry into effect 
this decree of the convention. Following this, 
actions of trespass would be commenced against 
the custom-house officers for the goods imported. 
These actions would be tried in the state courts, 
and when the verdicts had been found for the 
importing merchants, the sheriff would be ordered 
to enforce the verdicts and take the goods. This 
would be the operation of nullification. Next 
they examined the difficulties with which it was 
environed, and then asked the people to decide 
whether it was a peaceful and efficient remedy. 
Let it be supposed that an importing merchant 
were found willing to commence the action of 
trespass and incur the expenses of a heavy law¬ 
suit, with deprivation of his goods for a twelve- 
month; also, that a jury were found which would 

1 Mountaineer, September 29, 1832. Perry Collection, Vol. IX, 
pamphlet giving a speech by Joel R. Poinsett at a public meeting at 
Seyle’s, Charleston, October 5, 1832. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 187 

return a satisfactory verdict; then the case would 
have to be sent up to the federal courts for adjudi¬ 
cation, inasmuch as the validity of an act of 
Congress was questioned. There could be no 
doubt that the federal court would reverse the 
verdict. But it was said that the state court 
would violate the judiciary act and refuse to 
certify the case. The sheriff would then, it was 
affirmed, take the goods and deliver them to the 
merchant. But suppose the custom-house officer, 
as in duty bound, would not give up the goods 
until the duties were paid. If the sheriff should 
make use of force, the custom officer would also 
use force to resist him, and this would begin a 
civil war in Charleston. 

But even supposing that the custom-house 
officer would give up the goods and leave his 
post, and that the port of Charleston were opened 
and the duties ceased to be levied there; if the 
general government remained passive, the whole 
foreign trade of the United States would center 
there; goods would pour into this port from all 
the manufacturing nations of the earth, to be 
exported to all the ports of the neighboring states, 
where the tariff would remain in force and the 
duties consequently would be higher. But how 


188 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

long could the government of the United States 
permit such a state of things to exist? Could 
that government, deriving its revenues chiefly 
from duties and imports, long exist under such 
a state of things ? Would not the clamors of the 
other states for relief from the sufferings occa¬ 
sioned by the loss of foreign commerce compel 
the general government to take the most energetic 
measures ? As the most effective measure, South 
Carolina ports would be blockaded. This could 
not be prevented, for South Carolina had no navy. 
Would she call on England ? Would she go back 
to her former colonial vassalage and bow to the 
scepter of a king ? But England would not incur 
the displeasure of twenty-three states for the 
favor of one; she would not involve herself in 
a war with the United States for the commerce 
of South Carolina. There was no need to carry 
the argument farther. Let it be as it might, 
either the result at last was conflict of arms 
or the remedy was worthless. But, to go one 
step farther, suppose the Union were broken; 
the states would continue separating until the 
more wealthy and powerful should subdue 
the poorer and weaker; a struggle would thus 
follow which must terminate in the establish- 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 189 

ment of despotic governments throughout the 
continent. 

One of the points upon which the State Rights 
men relied to demonstrate that South Carolina 
was justified in taking extreme measures of 
redress was the allegation that, because of the 
oppression under which the state suffered, she 
was in a ruinous condition of decay. They 
declared that it was notorious that every kind 
of property had fallen greatly in value; that all 
classes of her citizens were embarrassed; that 
South Carolina’s commerce was expiring, her 
agriculture depressed, the spirit of enterprise 
gone; that emigration was alarmingly increasing 
—in short, that South Carolina, once so prosperous 
and happy, now exhibited the most melancholy 
evidences of a general decay. And why was this ? 
It had all arisen from an artificial, sectional, and 
tyrannical system of legislation, by which the 
state was crippled in order that northern manu¬ 
factures might increase, and drained of her 
resources in order that the West might be pro¬ 
vided with roads and canals. 1 

There was, however, abundant testimony con¬ 
tradicting the statements concerning this decay 

1 Mercury, March 8, 1832. 


190 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

and its causes. Long editorials asserted the pros¬ 
perity of Charleston, and others asserted that the 
fall in the value of lands in the state was due, not 
to the tariff, but to the immense and extraor¬ 
dinarily fertile area made available in the south¬ 
western country, which was draining the Southeast 
of its population and reducing the price of cot¬ 
ton. 1 In support of his assertion of prosperity, 
one writer said that there had been more luxuries 
imported into the state during the last two years 
than ever before; that more money was being 
expended upon elections and the vices incident 
thereto. Among several prosperous planters 
whom he named as examples, one was “a zealous 
Nullilier ” who had recently complained of the slow 
progress of the railroad which was being built 
from Charleston, and who, when it was suggested 
that he spur on the work by hiring out to the 
builders a hundred of his slaves, replied that it 
would make the difference of $20,000 in his 
income. The railroad contractors would have 
given him $12,000; he must therefore have made 
from his plantations $320 net to the hand. To 

1 Gazette, August 22, 1832; Mountaineer, September 22. Niles’ 
Register, December x, printed the speech by Joel R. Poinsett, Octo¬ 
ber 5. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 191 

the writer, the very fact that the railroad con¬ 
tractors were offering to pay $120 per hand per 
year, payable monthly, and could not procure 
them, was sufficient to prove the fallacy of the 
assertion that the people were not able to live 
upon the present produce of their labor. 1 

It was admitted by the Union men that the 
South suffered somewhat under the tariff, but 
they thought that the evils thus suffered were 
light when compared with those brought on by 
the continued agitation in which the state was kept 
by the advocates of nullification. Foreign mer¬ 
chants, they said, would not send their goods to 
South Carolina at such a time; real estate was 
of no exchangeable value; peaceable citizens left 
for other states; and society in general was dis¬ 
rupted. 2 

1 Courier, April 26, 1832. 

2 Niles' Register, December 1, 1832, speech by Joel R. Poinsett, 
October 5. The Courier published a letter from a commercial house 
“of high respectability” in New York, on December 8, showing the 
“bad commercial effects of the prevailing madness of South Carolina 
on Charleston.” It was no longer considered safe, the writer said, 
to do business in Charleston; he canceled all orders for cotton and 
rice not already executed, and asserted that many houses were trans¬ 
ferring orders from Charleston to Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans 
(Niles’ Register, January 5, 1833). 

On the other hand, a report of a meeting of Columbia merchants 
stated, in contradiction to rumors, that they did not find any 


192 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

One editor, in commenting on the attribution 
of the North’s prosperity and the South’s decline 
to the tariff, was bold enough to suggest that, if 
such a difference existed, it might be due to the 
fact that the northern people were an industrious, 
frugal, and economical people, while the citizens 
of the South were, on the contrary, idle, extrava¬ 
gant, and uncalculating in the management of their 
business. He would not admit, however, that 
the condition was as deplorable as the Nullifiers 
would have liked to make the people believe, for 
provisions and necessities of life were cheaper, 
and the people were living more plentifully, 
than ever before. It was true that they could 
not make as much money as formerly, but 
one dollar would purchase as much as two 
would fifteen years before, when the pros- 

embarrassment in credit on account of the political situation, 
either among the wholesale merchants of South Carolina or neigh¬ 
boring states, or among those of Europe ( Messenger , January 9, 

1833k 

As for Charleston losing her commerce, or rather, not advancing 
so rapidly as northern ports, she simply could not compete with the 
northern commercial ports. The merchants themselves recognized 
this, and in an attempt to revive commerce investigated a project 
to establish a line of ships for direct trade with Great Britain and 
Havre. A chance was here presented for a revival of the lan¬ 
guishing art of shipbuilding in Charleston, for a Charleston firm 
was figuring on the ships ( Courier , June 1, 1831). 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 193 

perity of the region was said to have been much 
greater. 1 

The State Rights and Free Trade associations 
neglected no opportunity that could furnish 
publicity for their doctrines. They secured con¬ 
trol of Miller’s, Planters’, and Merchants’ Almanac 
for Carolina and Georgia for the year 1832 and the 
year following. 2 They changed its name to the 
States Rights and Free Trade Almanac, and 
announced on its title-page that it contained “the 
usual astronomical calculations and local infor¬ 
mation, together with moral and political maxims 
and extracts.” Upon nearly every page of the 
statistical section appeared some short sentence 
or paragraph asserting in pointed style the evils 


1 Mountaineer, September 22, December 1, 1832. Niles’ Register, 
March 16, 1833, ironically commenting on the “dreadful suffering 
in South Carolina,” noticed that the Charleston races had been 
uncommonly well attended, with great display of fashion and wealth; 
and the Mercury of March 1, 1833, announced that $35,000 had just 
been refused for the horse “Bertrand,” though that sum was exactly 
ten times as much as was given for him by his owner. Niles’ Register 
remarked “ ‘Taxed .... 40 bales of the hundred,’ and yet able to 
pay $35,000 for a horse!” The Register further noticed that “the 
friends of Julia, by Bertrand, dam Transport,” etc., had challenged 
a race against her for $10,000, not excepting any horse in the United 
States. 

2 The Charleston Library Association has a complete file of this 
almanac from 1828 to 1861. 


194 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of the tariff and the paramount sovereignty of 
the state. There were added several pages of 
tables showing the duties on articles of daily 
consumption, and devices to prove that the tariff 
in effect reduced the price of cotton to the planter 
by about one-half. In fact, the almanac this year 
was really a State Rights pamphlet, with the 
usual almanac material interspersed among state¬ 
ments of the tenets of the party. Thus when a 
planter, mechanic, or merchant consulted the 
almanac to learn when to plant cabbages, how to 
cure malaria, when boats would leave, or who were 
the officers of a certain bank, he would be greeted 
with reminders of the State Rights doctrine. 

The various State Rights associations held meet¬ 
ings regularly every month and many special ones 
when occasion warranted calling them. Their 
orators harangued the members at great length 
and with ever-increasing vigor and spirit. 
Addresses in great numbers were issued to the 
people and nearly every meeting passed pompous 
resolutions for publication . 1 In some places joint 
debates were held. Sometimes a meeting called 

1 Mercury , January 14, February 15, April 4, 16, 28, June 19, 28, 
July 2, 6, 2i, 25, 31, October 13, 1832; Messenger, January 25, 
March 7, April n, June 27, July 11, 19; Mountaineer, September 1. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 195 

by one party would be attended and overpowered 
by the opposition. Again, if an apparently non¬ 
partisan meeting was called, it would break up 
into two meetings before much business had been 
transacted. 1 

In some localities the State Rights men seemed 
to be prepared to go faster than the main body of 
the party. As early as April some went so far 
as to propose a spontaneous election of delegates 
to a convention at once, without waiting for the 
adjournment of Congress or the meeting of an 
extra session of the state legislature. The party 
as a whole recognized that this would be uncon¬ 
stitutional, and instead promoted local petitioning 
to the legislature for a convention and general 
campaigning for the October elections of assembly- 
men. The convention became ostensibly the 
issue again, but most State Rights men meant by 
it a convention for nullification and nothing else. 
Others there were, however, who wanted the ques¬ 
tion to be left freely and openly to an unpledged 
convention, to the decision of which, whether for 
nullification, a southern convention, or unqualified 
submission, every citizen should yield assent. 2 

1 Messenger, August 29, September 5, 12, 26, 1832. 

2 Mercury, April 30, July 31, 1832; Messenger, August 1, 22. 


196 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Union party was not to be excelled. It, 
too, held numerous meetings, issued addresses, 
held celebrations when occasion warranted, gave 
dinners and barbecues, and listened to long 
addresses by its orators. In Charleston, since 
the old societies (the ’76 Association, the Cin¬ 
cinnati Society, the Revolutionary Society) had 
come to be controlled by the Nullifiers, the Union 
men formed a new one, which they named the 
Washington Society. 1 

When any person went over from one party 
to the other, the party which gained the recruit 
heralded the fact over the state as a sign of the 
continued growth of its numbers. Each side 
was prone to claim all the intelligence, stability, 
virtue, and patriotism of the state, though at 
least one editor believed that the most talented, 
patriotic, and virtuous sons of Carolina were about 
equally divided between the two parties. Where 
there were so many distinguished and honorable 
persons—ex-governors, judges, members of Con¬ 
gress, and distinguished members of the legis¬ 
lature—to be found in the ranks of each party, it 

1 Courier, June 14, July 6, August 25, September 12, 25, 27, 
October 2, 1832; Messenger, January 25, September 12, 26; Journal, 
August 18; Mountaineer, September 15. 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 197 

was surely unwarranted for either party to cast 
imputations on the other . 1 

Early in the year the Union party began to 
suggest that, in case the Clay tariff prevailed, 
the entire South should act. The Unionists would 
support a state convention provided that it would 
only endeavor to promote a southern convention, 
for only such action would be effective. The 
Unionists believed that, had the doctrine of nulli¬ 
fication never been ushered in, the South, under 
the common feeling of a common wrong, would 
long since have acted in concert and obtained by 
a dignified but determined course that redress 
which the intemperate efforts of South Carolina 
had almost indefinitely postponed. Until South 
Carolina abandoned her delusion and the South 
met in convention, no success could be gained . 2 

When General James Blair, a prominent Union 
man, declared that unless the present session of 
Congress should relax the system of injustice of 
which the South complained, it would be advisable 
for the complaining states to meet in solemn con¬ 
ference on the subject and make a concerted 
appeal to the justice of the general government, 

1 Mountaineer, March 17, April 21, 1832. 

2 Gazette, March 7, April 17, 1832. 


198 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

and that, if that appeal should be disregarded, 
they ought to consider the grave question whether 
actual secession would be preferable to a longer 
continued endurance, the Nullification party 
seized upon this as an occasion to assert that the 
Unionists were the ones who were really advo¬ 
cating secession and the breaking up of the Union, 
while they, the Nullifiers, were the true lovers of 
the Union, anxious to preserve it, and prepared 
with a plan which would do so . 1 The Union 
presses justly ridiculed this attempt to shift the 
charge of secession. 

The Nullifiers also argued against a southern 
convention on the ground that it would violate 
the constitutional prohibition of compacts between 
states. The Union men answered this objection 
by pointing out what would probably be the 
character and course of such a southern con¬ 
vention. It would assemble for deliberation as 
to the best mode of effecting a repeal of the tariff 
act; and it would apprise the tariff states of the 
determination of the anti-tariff members of the 
Union to withdraw from the compact and form 

1 Blair seems to be given credit for the suggestion of a southern 
convention ( Journal, April 28, 1832; Gazette, March 7; Mountaineer, 
May s; Mercury, May 16). 


The Nullificrs Capture the Legislature 199 

a separate confederacy should the obnoxious 
measure not be repealed within a given period. 
There would be no compact, treaty, or instrument 
of alliance of any kind attending this first stage 
of the proceedings. If the tariff states should 
disregard this plain warning, then the very first 
proceedings at a subsequent southern convention 
would be a solemn act of separation. Thus far, 
accordingly, there was nothing to be adopted in 
the form of a compact, treaty, or agreement. 
Such an instrument, declaring the mutual duties 
and obligations of the contracting parties, in case 
coercion were attempted, would be the necessary 
accompaniment of the act of separation and not 
a measure preceding it . 1 

Langdon Cheves, who was for a time claimed 
by both parties, came out in favor of the Union¬ 
ists on this proposal. Cheves believed that the 
southern states could constitutionally meet in 
convention to deliberate, if not to act. He 
believed, moreover, that a union of the aggrieved 
states and people was the only safe or hopeful 
measure of redress. The condition of party 
division in South Carolina appeared to him an 

1 Mercury, May 4. 1832; Messenger, May 16; Patriot, May 4; 
Journal, May 12. 


200 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

unfortunate development for which there was 
no necessity. Rashness, excitement, and fanatical 
zeal for the welfare of the state and section had 
caused both parties to assume positions which 
neither would naturally have taken; the result 
was that the menace of each was greatly exag¬ 
gerated in the eyes of the other. The Union was 
in no real danger from the State Rights party, he 
believed, unless the Union party should rely solely 
upon a foolish appeal to affection for the Union 
and should propose no active measure of redress; 
by moderation and wisdom it should endeavor to 
check the too great zeal of the State Rights party, 
instead of denouncing its motives. Too long 
had one portion of the people been exclusively 
engaged in pushing forward the plan of nulli¬ 
fication, and the other in the contemplation of its 
dangers. The proposal for a southern conven¬ 
tion, he believed, was one which might earlier 
have united both parties, and it might even yet 
unite the people of the state, though he feared it 
had come too late. In the hope that it would 
unite the people sufficiently to avert separate 
action, he heartily supported it. The strongest 
argument for a southern convention was, to his 
mind, the tendency it would have, by reason of 


The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 201 

the moral force of united counsels and resolves, 
to effect the redress desired and thereby prevent 
violence, secession, and disunion. 1 

The State Rights men objected that the Union 
men were talking about a southern convention 
merely to gain time, to divert the attention of the 
people, and to prevent the state from acting. 
It would lead to unqualified submission to the 
tariff, and both Congress and the North would at 
once recognize the adoption of the southern con¬ 
vention plan as a surrender. 2 

The Union meetings began so universally to 
approve of the southern convention plan that 
by the middle of May it was hailed as the official 
platform of the Union party. Then it was soon 
decided to have a Union party convention at 
Columbia in September to consider the expedi¬ 
ency of a southern convention, in case Congress 
should adjourn without passing a satisfactory 
tariff law. Union meetings at various places be¬ 
gan to appoint delegates to the party convention. 
When this procedure continued after the Unionists 
had largely professed satisfaction with the Adams 

1 Pamphlet containing letters by Langdon Clieves to two com¬ 
mittees in charge of dinners given in honor of James Blair in August, 
1832, in Sumter and Kershaw districts. 

2 Mercury, May 5, June 14, 1832; Messenger, June 20. 


202 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

tariff law, the State Rights men asked if they 
thought that a southern convention should resist 
an act which they considered satisfactory, or 
should secede from the Union because “a great 
bill of compromise,” as the Union men called it, 
had been passed. They declared it simply a 
scheme to put down nullification. 1 

The Union party convention met at Columbia 
on September io. It was attended by about 160 
delegates from the various districts and parishes. 2 
As a result of their deliberations, an address and a 
set of resolutions were adopted. They denounced 
nullification, but expressed a readiness to unite 
with the State Rights party in any constitutional 
resistance to the tariff. In case of concurrence 
on the part of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, 
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, they pro¬ 
posed a convention of the “citizens” of those 
states, to be elected by districts; the Columbia 
meeting pledged itself to abide by the measures 
decided upon by such a convention, and nine of 
the most distinguished men of the party were ap¬ 
pointed a committee to correspond with and act 

1 Mercury, May 14, August 14, 1832; Courier, June 14. 

2 There were from 1 to 18, with an average of 6, from each district 
or parish ( Courier, September 13, 1832). 


The Nullijiers Capture the Legislature 203 

as delegates to the legislatures of the southern 
states, to solicit co-operation in the efforts to 
call a southern convention. 1 



Map V. — Popular vote on state convention, 1832 


Again the city campaign in Charleston was to 
serve as a curtain-raiser for the state election 
contest, and both sides made great efforts to win. 

1 Courier, September 15, 1832; Mountaineer, September 22. 
The men appointed were Judge Daniel E. Huger and Joel R. Poin¬ 
sett, to go to Virginia and North Carolina; Governor Middleton and 
Mr. King, to go toTennessee; Judges Joseph Johnson and J. B. O’Neall, 
to go to Georgia; Judge William Smith, Judge J. P. Richardson, and 
Mr. Creswell, to go to Alabama and Mississippi. 





































204 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


The State Rights party again elected its whole 
ticket, by a majority of about 160, and it immedi¬ 
ately interpreted this to mean that Charleston 
had unequivocally and emphatically shown that 
“the spirit of nullification” was “fixed and 



Map VI.—Legislature of 1832, for and against convention 


settled.” It promptly held a “civic festival” 
in honor of the victory. 1 

During this campaign an incident occurred 
which throws some light upon the tactics used. 
One Peter J. Staunton met his death, so the jury 

1 Mercury, September 1, 5, 7, 1832. 






























































The Nullifiers Capture the Legislature 205 

of inquest held, by leaping from a third-story 
window of a house on Queen street in which he 
was forcibly detained. The Mercury charged 
that he was being held there with a number of 
other prisoners, to be kept intoxicated until after 
the election, and that after the accident the Union 
party held a meeting and sent a committee to the 
executive committee of the State Rights party 
to arrange an exchange of prisoners; but the 
latter had no such persons and those held by the 
Union party were released. Similar charges, 
however, came from the other side. 1 

1 Mercury, September 3, 1832. The next day the Patriot denied 
the story; the Mercury editor then backed down somewhat, saying 
that he had printed the story as told to him by citizens of the highest 
character. At any rate there seems no doubt that, though persons 
may not have been actually kidnaped and held prisoners, they were 
kept under the influence of alcohol, that they might vote as their 
trainers desired. Conditions were so bad that after the election 
both parties united in an effort to purify the elections. Committees 
were appointed by both parties to act together and draw up an agree¬ 
ment to put down election abuses ( Mercury , September 8, 13, 15). 
The agreement evidently was not kept in the following election, for 
a gentleman in Charleston wrote on October 12, 1832: . the 

Union party were defeated in Charleston by about 130 majority. 
The fact is, the Union party is the strongest and most respectable, 
but the Nullies are the rabble, and are, however, headed by some 
men of first rate abilities. 

“For weeks prior to the election we had ‘all sorts of times’ here. 

Each party had public meetings and suppers every night.On 

Saturday our party had another meeting and supper, and as some of 



206 Nitllification Controversy in South Carolina 

Though defeated in the city election, the Union 
party tried bravely to rally for the state election, 1 
but it was doomed to disappointment. The 
returns showed that the state had declared for 
a state convention; and a convention, with the 
State Rights men in control, seemed to the Union 
men to spell nullification; and nullification meant 
war and the beginning of a series of disasters 
which would destroy South Carolina. Never¬ 
theless, most of the Unionists felt in duty bound 

them were returning they were attacked with clubs, etc., by a mob 
of Nullifiers. The Union men, not dreaming of an attack, were 
altogether unprepared, but they soon rallied, and by breaking off 
the branches of a number of trees in the neighborhood, declared 
themselves ready for battle, but through the persuasions of the 
leading men of both parties, all were induced to retire home. 

“During the whole of Sunday both parties kept open houses and 
the Union party had a meeting in consequence of hearing that the 
Nullifiers had 27 of our men drunk and locked up. A committee was 
dispatched to them, giving them till five o’clock to release their 
prisoners, and threatening, if they did not, that the house in which 
they were confined should be razed to the ground. Hooks, etc., were 
deliberately procured for the purpose, and the Nullifiers, seeing our 
determination, gave up the miserable men they had captured” 
{Niles' Register, November 24, 1832). 

The Charleston Patriot of September 10 told of a mob of Nulli¬ 
fiers who, led by one Winges, attacked the home of a Union man, 
John Schachte, and threatened to pull it down. A shot was fired 
and Winges was wounded ( Niles’ Register, October 27). 

1 Patriot, September 5, 1832; Gazette, September 5; Courier, 
September 5. 


The NuHifiers Capture the Legislature 207 

to stand by the state. The only consolation they 
had was the fact that the awful responsibility was 
not upon themselves. 1 Such was the attitude of 
the Union men immediately after the election, 
when they interpreted the State Rights victory 
to mean an immediate clash with the United 
States government. They would support the 
state in revolution. Later, however, when they 
realized that the state was not to revolt openly, 
but that nullification was to be tried, they deter¬ 
mined not to support such a step. 

A plot of the vote shows clearly that there was 
no marked sectionalism in the vote. The sup¬ 
porters of each party were distributed nearly 
equally in both the interior and the coastal 
sections. 2 

1 Gazette, October 1, 1832; Mountaineer, October 13; Journal, 
October 20. 

2 See Maps V and VI and p. 107, n. 3. 


CHAPTER VI 


NULLIFICATION ADOPTED (1832) 

Immediately after the result of the election was 
known, Governor Hamilton issued a proclamation 
for an extra session of the legislature to convene 
on October 22. The plan was to have the conven¬ 
tion meet and act before Congress should meet. 1 
Some of the Union papers soon questioned the 
constitutional right of the governor to call the 
extra session, and of the newly elected members to 
attend. The governor took the precaution of 
getting unofficial advisory opinions of the judges 
of the court of appeals; they agreed unanimously 
that the newly elected members might be con¬ 
vened. Since a majority of these judges were of 
the Union party, the State Rights men concluded 
that those who raised the objection did so simply 
to cause as much embarrassment as possible, 
now that it was ascertained that the state 
would act. 2 

1 Messenger, October 10, 1832. 

2 Mercury, October 12, 1832; Courier, October 15; Gazette, 
October 20; Messenger, October 24. 

208 


Nullification Adopted 


209 


The legislature convened on October 22, and 
an act was passed on October 25 calling for a con¬ 
vention to meet on the third Monday in Novem¬ 
ber. Delegates were to be elected on the second 
Monday and Tuesday in November, and each 
election district was to elect delegates in number 
equal to its state senators and representatives. 
The bill passed the House by a vote of 96 to 25, and 
the senate by a vote of 31 to 13, just as was pre¬ 
dicted from the election returns. The legislature 
adjourned at once, postponing all other business to 
its regular meeting at the end of November, when 
it could pass such acts as the convention should 
recommend. The action was unhesitating, and 
apparently an early adjustment of the difficulty 
was not expected, for the attempt was made to 
provide for such contingencies as might arise 
from the continuation of the convention for one 
year. 1 

After the Nullifiers had captured the legislature 
by a majority sufficient to call a convention, they 
suggested that the Union party should abandon 
all opposition. The Mountaineer at once declared 
that such a request was inconsistent on the part of 

1 Mountaineer, October 27, November 3, 1832; Mercury, October 
27; Niles’ Register, November 3. 


210 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the Nullifiers, who were reminded that hitherto 
their doctrine had been that the minority had 
rights and that governments were established 
for the protection of minorities. 1 The Union 
members of the legislature, the Union State Rights 
and Jackson party, as they sometimes called them¬ 
selves, held a caucus in Columbia and asked the 
party men in each district to endeavor still to save 
the country by supporting a Union ticket for 
delegates to the convention. The Mountaineer 
urged the Union men in those districts where they 
had a majority to elect delegates, and in the doubt¬ 
ful ones not to give up the contest too soon. It 
also recommended that the leading men of the 
Union party be sent to the convention from the 
districts irrespective of their residence, so that 
the party would be represented by as much talent 
and weight of character as possible. Many now 
seemed to think that nothing would be done by the 
convention until after another session of Congress 
and that in the meantime a few strong men could 
do much to undeceive the people. In Charleston, 
however, the Union party central committee 
decided to offer no candidates. In some other 
districts there was no opposition to the State 

1 Mountaineer, October 20, 1832. 


Nullification Adopted 211 

Rights tickets, but in a few the Unionists elected 
their men. 1 

The question was soon raised as to what position 
the Union men would assume toward the con¬ 
vention; they gave an immediate and unequivocal 
answer, which was in consonance with the doctrines 
to which they had clung. In the first place, they 
wanted it clearly understood that they would not 
directly or indirectly sanction any act of nullifica¬ 
tion passed by the legislature or the convention. 
Suppose the federal and state governments should 
come into forcible and violent collision, which 
must the citizen obey ? The Union men an¬ 
nounced that when South Carolina should think 
proper to reclaim their allegiance by an act of 
secession, they must either obey the behest of her 
sovereign will or expatriate themselves; but that, 
so long as South Carolina admitted the Constitu¬ 
tion and laws of the United States to be the 
supreme law of the land, anything in her own 
constitution and laws to the contrary notwith¬ 
standing, they would be constrained to uphold the 
paramount authority of the Constitution and laws 

1 Mountaineer, October 27, November 3, 17, 1832; Messenger, 
November 14; Mercury, November 1, 10; Courier, October 29; 
Niles’ Register, November 10. 


212 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of the Union. Nullification was to them incom¬ 
patible with the federal Constitution and utterly at 
war with the very nature of the government, fatal 
to the uniformity of its operation, destructive 
of its efficiency, and calculated to produce irre¬ 
mediable anarchy and confusion. They must 
therefore oppose it. 1 

The State Rights party then claimed that the 
Union leaders had pledged themselves to go with 
the state when she should decide to nullify; the 
Union men answered that they had given no such 
promise, but had pledged themselves to go with 
the state if she actually seceded from the Union. 
But suppose South Carolina, through the State 
Rights majority, should attempt to force the 
Union minority by pains and penalties to disobey 
the laws of the United States before she had 
absolved her citizens from their allegiance to the 
Union. The Union men protested that she would 
be placing her sons between treason on the one 
hand and confiscation on the other, and that such 
a course would inevitably lead to a civil war. 

On November 19 the convention met at Colum¬ 
bia and within a few days adopted a series of 
important documents as the expression of the 

1 Mountaineer, October 27, 1832; Courier, November 3. 


Nullification Adopted 


213 


sovereign will of the state . 1 The report of the 
“Committee of Twenty-one,” written by Robert 
Y. Hayne, reviewed the history of the tariff and 
gave the grounds upon which its constitutionality 
was contested; it related how, in spite of the 
South Carolina protests, Congress had deliberately 
passed an act which removed the revenue duties 
and retained the purely protective ones. It de¬ 
clared South Carolina to be a sovereign state, 
recognizing “no tribunal upon earth as above her 
authority”; true, she had entered into a “solemn 

1 Courier, November 28, 1832; Journal of the Convention of 
the People of South Carolina assembled at Columbia, November 19, 
1832, and again March 11, r833 (published in pamphlet form); 
see also 22d Congress, 2d session, Document No. 45 of the House; 
message of the President on the state of the Union, with r4 accom¬ 
panying documents, January 16, 1833 J b) report of the Committee 
of Twenty-one to the convention of South Carolina; (2) an ordinance 
of the convention to nullify certain acts of Congress; (3) address of 
the convention to the people of South Carolina; (4) address of the 
convention to the people of the United States; (5) message of 
Governor Hamilton to the legislature of South Carolina; (6) inaugural 
address of Governor Hayne to the legislature; (7) an act to carry 
the ordinance, in part, into effect, called the replevin act; (8) an act 
to provide for the security and protection of South Carolina; (9) an 
act concerning the oath required by the ordinance; (10) proclamation 
of the President of the United States; (11) instructions of Secretary 
McLane to the collector of the customs at Charleston; (12) letter 
of Secretary McLane to the United States district attorney at 
Charleston; (13) proclamation by the governor of South Carolina; 
(14) military orders of the adjutant-general and captain of the 
Richland Volunteers. 


214 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

compact of Union with other sovereign states,” 
but she claimed and would exercise the right to 
determine the extent of her obligations under that 
compact, and would not allow any other power 
to exercise the right for her. A great deal was 
said about “liberty” and “slavery,” and the 
doctrines promulgated by Virginia and Kentucky 
in 1798 were cited as authority sufficient to 
justify the position that South Carolina was now 
assuming. 

The ordinance, drawn up by Chancellor William 
Harper, declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 
to be null and void. It then called upon the 
legislature to pass such acts as were needed to 
carry the ordinance into effect, and to prevent 
the enforcement of the tariff acts within South 
Carolina. It asserted that in no case of law 
or equity in the courts of the state could the 
authority of the ordinance or the acts of the 
legislature to give it effect be questioned, and that 
no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United 
States was to be allowed. All state officers were 
to be required to take an oath prescribed by the 
legislature, to “obey, execute, and enforce” the 
ordinance and the acts of the legislature made in 
pursuance thereof, and no juror was to be im- 


Nullification Adopted 


215 


paneled in any state court, in any case in which 
the ordinance or acts of the legislature were 
questioned, unless he should take such an oath. 
It announced for the people of South Carolina that 
they would not submit to the use of force by the 
federal government to reduce the state to obedi¬ 
ence; that they would consider the passage by 
Congress of any act authorizing the employment 
of a military or naval force against the state or 
her citizens— 

or any other act on the part of the federal government 
to coerce the state, shut up her ports, destroy or harrass 
her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be 
null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals 
of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance 
of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of 
this state will henceforth hold themselves absolved from 
all further obligation to maintain or preserve their politi¬ 
cal connexion with the people of other states, and will 
forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and 
do all other acts and things which sovereign and inde¬ 
pendent states may of right do. 

An address to the people of South Carolina, 
written by Robert J. Turnbull, was intended for 
the benefit of the Union men. It first stated that 
nullification was a natural, sovereign, reserved 
right, and then attempted to answer the various 


216 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

objections raised against nullification; it pro¬ 
fessed a belief that nullification would preserve 
and not destroy the Union, but admitted that 
Congress or the central government could give 
the controversy what issue it pleased. So much 
was simply a restatement of a position often pre¬ 
sented. The real point was reached when the ad¬ 
dress announced that if appeals to reason proved 
unavailing to induce any of the people of the 
state—the Union men—to support the action of 
the convention, obedience would be commanded; 
it asserted that there was not and never had been 
any direct or immediate allegiance between the 
citizens of South Carolina and the federal govern¬ 
ment ; that the relation between them was through 
the state and that the commands of the state were 
obligatory on her citizens. 

An address to the people of the other states, 
named individually, prepared by George McDuffie, 
set forth the State Rights conception of the com¬ 
pact entered into between the sovereign states. 
It described the oppressiveness of the tariff and 
added that the people of South Carolina would 
not count the costs in vindicating their rights. 
They were willing to give much to preserve the 
Union, and, with a distinct declaration that it was 


Nullification Adopted 


217 


a concession, they would consent to the same 
rate of duty on protected as on unprotected 
articles, provided that no more revenue were 
raised than was necessary to meet the demands of 
the government for constitutional purposes, and 
that a duty, substantially uniform, were imposed 
on all foreign imports. The address then gave 
warning to the general government that if South 
Carolina were driven out of the Union, all the 
other planting states and some of the western states 
would follow, for they would not continue to pay 
to the North, for the privilege of being united 
with the North, a tribute of 50 per cent on their 
consumption, when they could receive all their 
supplies duty-free through the ports of South 
Carolina. The address closed by disclaiming the 
slightest apprehension that the general govern¬ 
ment would attempt the use of force, but an¬ 
nounced that, if it did, South Carolina would be 
“the cemetery of freemen rather than the habi¬ 
tation of slaves.” 

The proceedings of the convention were con¬ 
ducted with great solemnity, and there seemed 
to be very little excitement among the members 
of either party. The Union delegates silently 
voted against the report, ordinance, and addresses; 


218 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the State Rights delegates adopted these measures 
unhesitatingly, confident that they were doing 
the bidding of the people expressed by their 
election. The convention was composed gener¬ 
ally of men who had advanced to middle life 
or beyond it. There were but few young men, 
probably not one under twenty-five, and very 
few under thirty; there were several who had 
served in the Revolutionary War. The wealth 
of the state was well represented. Of talent, no 
one would deny that the convention could boast 
of a large share, for the papers adopted by the 
convention were pronounced, even by men of 
the opposition, as among the most able they had 
ever read. 1 

The state legislature convened immediately 
after the convention adjourned, and proceeded to 
pass the acts necessary to carry the ordinance of 
nullification into effect. The governor’s message 
had in it several features which called forth bitter 
resentment from the Union men. It was pro¬ 
nounced by them such a document as would 
harmonize with the acknowledged attributes of 
an “Eastern Despot, haughtily addressing his 
slaves,” for it bore no feature which would entitle 

1 Messenger, December 5, 1832. 


Nullification Adopted 


219 


it to the honor of being called “an exposition of 
the affairs of a free people.” The governor 
recommended that the legislature raise an army 
of 12,000 men, to be called the “State Guard.” 
This the Union men said would be a standing 
army, dangerous to the liberties of the people— 
the first step toward the establishment of a mili¬ 
tary despotism. The governor would go even 
farther than the proscription of Union men from 
office by the “test oath,” for he recommended a 
“bill of pains and penalties” to be enforced upon 
those who should disobey the ordinance, and an 
“act of treason” to apply to those who should 
raise their hands in defense of the Union. 1 

The legislature passed an act ostensibly to 
afford a complete and peaceable protection 
against the tariff. The first and second clauses 
authorized any importer, consignee, or owner of 
goods to recover possession of his goods forth¬ 
with from a collector by an act of replevin, or by 
any other process authorized by law in cases of 
illegal seizure or detention of personal property. 
If the person who claimed the goods chose to pro¬ 
ceed by replevin, he might make affidavit of the 

1 Mercury, December 1, 1S32; Gazette, November 30; Moun¬ 
taineer, December 8. 


220 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

seizure or detention by the collector or his agent; 
a writ of replevin would be given to the sheriff, 
who would take possession of the goods and 
immediately deliver them over to the claimant 
upon his giving bond, to the value of the goods, 
that he would prosecute his suit and abide its 
decision. This bond the sheriff was to retain. 
The merchant, having received the goods, might 
dispose of them at pleasure; his declaration was 
to be filed; the case would come into court; 
the jury must be sworn to enforce the ordinance 
of nullification, and, of course, must decide that, 
the tariff being a nullity, the collector had no 
claim whatever to the goods; the bond given to 
the sheriff would be canceled and there the matter 
would end. 

The third clause provided against the retention 
of goods by the collector or other federal agent 
in disobedience to the mandate of the court. In 
such case the sheriff was to make affidavit of the 
detention and take out a writ of withernam, 
under which he must seize the private property of 
the collector, to double the value of the goods 
detained, and retain it at the expense of the 
collector and for the benefit of the importer until 
the goods were surrendered. The fourth clause 


Nullification Adopted 


221 


empowered the sheriff to resist any attempt to 
recapture the goods after he had delivered them 
to the merchant. The fifth authorized any per¬ 
son who should pay any duties to recover the 
amount with interest from the collector by an 
action of assumpsit. This action would take the 
usual course of an action on account or note of 
hand, and the merchant, after having received 
his goods and sold them, if he chose this 
remedy, would be sure of receiving the amount 
of duties and interest on them within a year 
at the most. If the sheriff should not be able 
to get the money, the collector himself might 
be seized. 

The sixth clause entitled any person arrested 
or imprisoned by process of the federal court to 
immediate release by writ of habeas corpus on 
application to any judge of the state. It also 
entitled any such person to an action against the 
federal officer for unlawful arrest or imprisonment. 
The seventh clause provided that no title should 
be good if given by any federal officer for property 
sold for duties. The eighth endeavored to pre¬ 
vent appeal to a federal court by providing a 
fine and imprisonment for any official who should 
furnish any record which related in any manner to 


222 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the ordinance and acts of nullification. The 
ninth subjected the collector and all his assistants 
or employees, aiders, or abettors, to fines and 
imprisonment for any disobedience to the process 
of replevin, or for any other attempt to resist or 
defeat this law; it also subjected them to indict¬ 
ment for any assault or offense involved in their 
misdemeanor. The tenth provided still heavier 
fines and imprisonment for all persons in any way 
concerned in recapturing or attempting to recap¬ 
ture goods which the sheriff had delivered to the 
merchant or owner. The eleventh declared that 
no public jail in the state should be used for the 
imprisonment of any person for nonpayment of 
duties, and the twelfth that no house or building 
in the state should be so used. To make sure 
that the federal violators of the law would be 
punished at the first court of sessions after the com¬ 
mission of their crime, the thirteenth clause pro¬ 
vided that no indictment under this act should 
be traversed. The fourteenth directed that 
the fines were to go to the public treasury of 
the state. The fifteenth provided that the 
ordinance and the act might be given in evi¬ 
dence without being specially pleaded. The six¬ 
teenth and last announced that the act should 


Nullification Adopted 223 

take effect on the first day of the following 
February. 1 

The State Rights men professed to believe 
that the whole project would work smoothly. A 
few consolidationists, they held, who said that 
they would pay the duties, might do so for a short 
time, but they could not meet competition long 
and would soon give in. No federal officer would 
dare to attempt to put himself in opposition to 
the South Carolina laws. The remedy would be 
applied peaceably through state courts, and 
since the people of South Carolina would commit 
no act of violence themselves, Jackson would be 
unable to find a pretext for commencing a conflict. 
He might “make faces and shake his fist and snap 
his fingers” at them as much as he pleased; they 
would “walk into the courthouse and leave him 
bullying on the green.” They had told him that 
if he attempted force by blockading their harbors 
or otherwise cutting off their trade, they would 
secede; and if he resolved to fight them upon the 
right of secession, he would find more states oppos¬ 
ing him than he expected to meet. 2 

1 Mercury, January 1, 1833. 22 d Congress, 2d session, House 
Document No. 45, pp. 70-74. 

2 Mercury, January 1, 1833. 


224 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

But the legislature also made provision for the 
possibility that everything might not proceed as 
planned with its “peaceable” remedy. It passed 
an act authorizing the governor to accept an un¬ 
limited number of volunteer companies, to be 
ready to march at a moment’s notice, “ to suppress 
insurrection and repel invasion and support the 
civil authorities,” which the Union men inter¬ 
preted to mean to put down the Union party, 
trample on the rights and liberties of the people, 
and resist the United States government in the 
execution of its laws. 1 A fund of $200,000 was 
appropriated to the contingent fund, always at the 
disposal of the governor, and $200,000 more for 
the purchase of arms. 

During the preliminary discussions on nulli¬ 
fication various and conflicting reports had come 
from other states as to their opinions of the 
doctrine. After South Carolina had taken the 
step, however, there was apparently no doubt that 
the action met but little favor, even in the other 
southern states. 2 The South Carolinians who 

1 Mountaineer, December 29, 1832. 

2 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, December 31, 1832. 
Patriot, March 3, 1832; Mountaineer, October 20, November 24, De¬ 
cember, 15; Messenger, December 12; Niles’ Register, September 1, 
15, December 1. 


Nullification Adopted 


225 


had looked to Virginia for support in their move¬ 
ment had long before this found themselves dis¬ 
appointed. The men of the western part of Vir¬ 
ginia had early shown that they had no sympathy 
with the Nullifiers. In the lower Piedmont and 
Tidewater counties there was much sympathy 
with the South Carolina protest against the tariff, 
and even some sympathy with the nullification 
doctrine, but a majority even here agreed with 
Thomas Ritchie and the Richmond Enquirer , that 
nullification was unlike the Virginia doctrines of 
1798 and without sanction or precedent, even 
though they disagreed with Ritchie on political 
questions related to the presidency. They be¬ 
lieved in the compact theory of the formation of 
the central government and affirmed a belief in the 
right of secession; hence they disagreed with the 
President’s proclamation on these points. Some 
expressed to the President an appreciation of the 
cause for which James Hamilton, Jr., and John C. 
Calhoun were working, but gave definite assurances 
that though the former was considered a “noble 
fellow,” he must “throw overboard Mr. Jonas Cal¬ 
houn” before aid could be expected from Virginia. 1 

1 Jackson Papers: John Randolph to Jackson, March 1, 18, 28, 
1832. 


226 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Though Virginia had but a few Nullifiers, it 
was said that she would not “send a man or 
musket to put down South Carolina,” and that 
a resort to “violent remedies” by the general 
government might cause her to support South 
Carolina. 1 

The majority of the Virginia statesmen, how¬ 
ever, seem to have become too much interested 
in the presidential campaign and the distribu¬ 
tion of official plums to share more than a modi¬ 
cum of South Carolina’s agitation. Moreover, 
some believed honestly that the menace of the 
tariff would soon disappear when the sale of the 
public lands extinguished the national debt and 
rendered the tariff unnecessary and even impos¬ 
sible. 2 

From Alabama came assurances to Washington 
that the state was sound on the nullification doc¬ 
trine, in spite of superficial appearances to the 
contrary in a recent election of a United States 
senator. 3 From his own observations Jackson 

1 Van Buren Papers: Thomas Ritchie to Van Buren, June 25, 
1832; Richard E. Parker to Van Buren, September 5. 

2 Charles H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie, chaps, iv and v; Sectional¬ 
ism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, chap. vi. 

* Jackson Papers: John Coffee to Jackson, February 24, 1832. 


Nullification Adopted 


227 


concluded that the few Nullifiers who were in 
Tennessee would not dare to “hoist their colors.” 1 
New York was said to be ready to adopt strong 
resolutions against nullification. 2 Even Georgia, 
it seemed, would disappoint South Carolina in 
the position she was about to assume. 3 

1 Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, September 16, 1832. 

2 Jackson Papers: James A. Hamilton to Jackson, New York, 
December 13, 1832. 

3 Van Buren Papers: John Forsyth to Van Buren, November 23, 
1832. 


CHAPTER VII 

JACKSON AND NULLIFICATION (1832-33) 

The State Rights men had known for a year 
or more that the Union men were counting much 
on the sympathy of the President for their views. 
Yet there was uncertainty as to just what he 
would do when the real test should come. The 
relations of the two parties to the President had 
been made entirely clear in the presidential cam¬ 
paign. The State Rights men were so inimical 
to Jackson that they were accused even of being 
willing to support Adams in opposition to him . 1 
Jackson’s popularity, however, was so great that 
for some time they had to conceal much of their 
hostility to him . 2 The Union men alone took 
part in the Baltimore nominating convention, but 
their opponents, when the time came to cast the 
vote of the state, felt not at all bound by the 
work of the national convention, and cast the vote 

1 Mountaineer , January 28, 1832. The accusation was based on 
a suggestion made by the Post. 

2 Journal, January 28, 1833. Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun 
to S. L. Gouverneur, February 13. 

228 


Jackson and Nullification 


229 


of the state for Floyd, governor of Virginia, and 
Lee, a Massachusetts free-trade advocate . 1 

During September and October Jackson was 
kept informed of affairs in the state by letters 
from Joel R. Poinsett. This Union leader told 
the President that the Union men would firmly 
oppose nullification and adhere to their allegiance 
to the United States. He reminded Jackson, 
however, that allegiance implied protection, and 
that the Unionists relied upon the government to 
act with vigor in their behalf. The Nullifiers, 
he said, seemed to believe that no measures would 
be taken against them; he assumed otherwise, 
however, and recommended that the forts be 
supplied with muskets, hand grenades, and 
ammunition enough to enforce the customs laws 
if necessary . 2 

Jackson soon recognized that a crisis was 
fast approaching in South Carolina. As early as 
September n he had sent word to the Secretary 
of the Navy that a confidential friend had “more 
than intimated ” that efforts had been made by the 
Nullifiers, “and perhaps not without success,” to 

1 Presidential electors were chosen by the legislature in South 
Carolina. See Messenger, December 1 2, 1832; Journal, December 15. 

2 Jackson Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, October 16, 1832. 


230 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

disaffect some of the navy and army officers in 
command at Charleston, in order to get possession 
of the forts and thereby prevent a blockade. The 
Secretary of War was also warned to be sure that 
he had officers in Charleston who could not be 
corrupted by the Nullifiers, and on October 29 he 
was instructed to send secret orders to the officers 
commanding the forts in Charleston harbor to be 
prepared against a surprise attack “by any set 
of people.” 1 

A few days later Jackson sent George Breathitt, 
brother of the governor of Kentucky, to Charles¬ 
ton in the guise of an agent for the Post-Office 
Department, but in reality as a military spy, to 
report on the ships in the harbor and the means 
of defense around Sullivan’s Island and other 
strategic points. He was to endeavor to dis¬ 
cover the intentions of the Nullifiers as to the col¬ 
lection of the duties, and to investigate reports 
Jackson had received from Union men in Charles¬ 
ton that there were several revenue officers who 
were expressing sympathy with the Nullifiers, and 
that the postmaster of Charleston, his deputy, 
and clerks were spies for the Nullifiers, opening 

Jackson Papers: Jackson to Levi Woodbury, September n, 
1832; Jackson to the Secretary of War, October 29. 


Jackson and Nullification 


231 


communications passing between the administra¬ 
tion and the Unionists. He was also, “by consul¬ 
tation with Colonel Drayton and Mr. Poinsett 
and other discreet friends of the Union,” to 
obtain all such information as might aid the 
government in taking “timely steps towards the 
counteraction of the effort of the Nullifiers to 
render inoperative the laws of the Union.” 1 

Instructions were sent on November 6 by the 
Secretary of the Treasury to the three collectors 
of the customs at Charleston, Georgetown, and 
Beaufort to be ready for any emergency. The 
various clauses of “an act to regulate the collection 
of duties on imports and tonnage,” passed March 
2, 1799, were quoted to remind them of their 
powers and duties. Revenue cutters were placed 
at their disposal, and they were empowered to 
provide as many boats and to employ as many 
inspectors as might be necessary for the execution 
of the law. In view of the likelihood of an attempt 
to take goods from the custody of the officers of the 
customs under process issuing from the state 
courts, the Secretary of the Treasury also wrote 
on November 19 to remind the United States 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, November 7, 1832; Jack- 
son Papers: Instructions to Breathitt, November 7. 


232 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


district attorney at Charleston that in the case of 
Slocum v. Mayberry the Supreme Court had 
decided that the courts of the United States 
had exclusive jurisdiction over all seizures made 
on land or water for a breach of the laws of the 
United States, and that any intervention of a 
state authority, which, by taking the thing seized 
out of the hands of the United States officer, might 
obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, was 
unlawful. 1 

When the President sent his military spy to 
Charleston he privately expressed great astonish¬ 
ment that the people of South Carolina “should 
be so far deluded by the wild theory and sophistry 
of a few ambitious demagogues as to place them¬ 
selves in the attitude of rebellion against their 
government, and become the destroyers of their 
own prosperity and liberty.” There appeared 
to him in all their proceedings nothing but madness 
and folly. “The duty of the Executive,” he said, 
“is a plain one; the laws will be executed and 
the Union preserved by all the constitutional 
and legal means he is invested with, and I rely 
with great confidence on the support of every 

1 22d Congress, 2d session, House Document No. 45, pp. 92-99; 
2d Wheaton, p. 1. 


Jackson and Nullification 


233 


honest patriot in South Carolina who really 
loves his country and the prosperity and happiness 
we enjoy under our happy and peaceful republican 
government.” 1 

The President thereafter kept in close touch 
with the leader of the Union party, Joel R. 
Poinsett, who, in the middle of November, wrote 
of his belief that a majority of the leaders of the 
Nullifiers’ “political club” would favor secession 
in case of an attempt by the government to coerce 
the state, and that even though many of the 
party would be opposed to such a course, the 
leaders could secure its adoption. “ It is believed,” 
he said, “that Mr. Calhoun is against this measure 
and insists that the state may be in and out of 
the Union at the same time and that the govern¬ 
ment has no right to cause the laws to be executed 
in South Carolina. Both parties are anxious and 
indulge the hope that the government will com¬ 
mit some act of violence which will enlist the 
sympathies of the bordering states.” Poinsett 
recommended caution, and urged especially that 
the Nullifiers be allowed to commit the first act 
of violence. 2 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, November 7, 1832. 

2 Jackson Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, November 16, 29, 1832. 


234 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

As a precautionary measure the President early 
sent five thousand stand of muskets to Castle 
Pinckney with the promise that a sloop of war and 
a smaller armed vessel should reach Charleston 
harbor in due time. The commanding officer 
of Castle Pinckney was to be instructed to deliver 
the arms, ordnance, and other equipment to the 
order of Poinsett as the occasion should demand 
and as they cpuld be spared from the arsenal. 
The President interpreted nullification to mean 
insurrection and war; he felt that the other states 
had a right to put it down and that all the “peace¬ 
able citizens ” of South Carolina had a right to aid 
in the same patriotic effort when summoned in 
support of the violated laws of the land. He 
placed much confidence in the Union party of 
South Carolina, acting with Poinsett, and was 
anxious to furnish all means in his power to these 
patriots to save the state. 1 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, December 2, 9, 1832; 
Department of War to Poinsett, December 7; Van Buren Papers: 
Jackson to Van Buren, October 23. 

One Union man in Calhoun’s own section assured Jackson that 
he intended to start a movement in the Union party to secure the 
impeachment of Calhoun, and asked that all his former letters to the 
President be preserved for evidence of the impression produced in 
his district by the attempts of Calhoun to excite the people to resist 
the operation of the laws (Jackson Papers: Dr. E. S. Davis to 


Jackson and Nullification 


235 


On December 9 Jackson issued his famous 
proclamation in answer to the stand taken by 
South Carolina. It gave clearly his “views of 
the treasonable conduct of the convention and 
the governor’s recommendation to the assembly.” 
The whole situation, and particularly “the act 
of raising troops,” was regarded as “not merely 
rebellion, but .... positive treason.” The 
absurdity of the situation he believed was too 
glaring to admit of argument, and he hoped that 
his proclamation, which he addressed to the good 
people of South Carolina “with the feeling of a 
father,” would “take the scales of delusion from 
their eyes before .... too late.” 1 All the mem¬ 
bers of Congress with whom he conversed assured 

Jackson, November 22, 1832). Still another Unionist wrote from 
Columbia that he was “almost sick” of his native state, “or rather 

those who rule it.Everything has become rotten. Even those 

who call themselves Union men have acted foolish, ay — like babies. 
I have almost determined to wash my hands of the whole of them and 
look for another home. I would freely die to redeem the state from 
the blind infatuation under which she labors, but a thousand lives 
would not do it, unless Calhoun & Co. were included in the number. 
Never did a sick patient want bleeding worse than some of our 
Nullies do.” He then told of the military preparations of the 
Nulhfiers to effect their “peaceful remedy” (Jackson Papers: James 
O. Hanlon to Jackson, November 30, 1832). 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, December 9, 1832; 
Jackson Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, December 9. 



236 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

him that Congress would sustain him; he deter¬ 
mined, therefore, to meet the menace at the 
threshold and to have the leaders arrested and 
arraigned for treason. He tried to encourage 
the Union leaders by assuring them that in forty 
days he could have fifty thousand men within 
the limits of South Carolina, and in forty days 
more another fifty thousand. “How impotent,” 
he wrote, is “the threat of resistance with only a 
population of 250,000 whites and nearly double 
that in blacks, with our ships in the port to aid 
in the execution of our laws. The wickedness, 
madness, and folly of the leaders and the delu¬ 
sion of their followers, in the attempt to destroy 
themselves and our Union, has not its parallel in 
the history of the world. The Union will be 
preserved.” 1 

The President’s proclamation was printed by 
the Union leaders in large editions to circulate 
throughout the districts. It would serve to give 
courage to the Union men and might convince 
others of the error of their ways. 2 In no uncertain 
terms the President declared that he considered 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, December 9, 1832. 

3 Poinsett Papers: Chapman Levy to Poinsett, December 22, 
1832. 


Jackson and Nullification 


237 


“the power to annul a law of the United States, 
assumed by one state, incompatible with the 
existence of the Union, contradicted expressly 
by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorised 
by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on 
which it was founded, and destructive of the great 
object for which it was formed.” 1 The object 
of the Nullifiers, he set forth, was disunion; 
“but,” he added, “be not deceived by names; 

disunion, by armed force, is treason.The 

laws of the United States must be executed.” 

The President’s message, which had appeared 
in print a few days before the proclamation, 
received no little praise from the pens of the 
State Rights editors because of its sound doctrines 
on the tariff. 2 At that time the intentions of 
those in power were not fully known; but the 
proclamation left no doubt. It was hailed as a 
declaration of war by the President against South 
Carolina. 3 When contrasted with the message of a 
few days before, it seemed to show that “this un¬ 
happy old man” had been induced by his advisers 
to arrogate the power to coerce a state of the 


1 Richardson, Messages and Papers oj the Presidents, II, 643. 

2 Mercury, December 10, 1832; Messenger, December 19. 

3 Mercury, December 17, 1832; Messenger, December 26. 



238 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

confederacy; to issue the decree of a dictator, which 
time would prove whether he dared or could en¬ 
force; to attempt to intimidate the Whigs 1 of South 
Carolina by threats; and to encourage and foment 
insurrection and violence on the part of the inter¬ 
nal enemies of the state. The State Rights men 
believed that the proclamation went the whole 
length of the doctrine of consolidation, not only 
assuming for the federal government the right to 
judge of its own powers, but arrogating this right 
to its full extent on behalf of the executive depart¬ 
ment. Accordingly, they greeted the document 
with indignation and defiance. 

The Union men believed that their opponents 
were pouring their bitterness upon the chief 
magistrate because the proclamation had come 
like a thunderbolt to the leaders of their party. 
They had had no expectation that their manifesto 

1 The Nullitiers seem to have assumed the name of Whigs and 
applied that of Tories to the Union men. Duff Green, the editor of 
the Washington Telegraph, referred to James Blair, congressman from 
South Carolina, and his party as Tories, whereupon Blair made an 
assault upon Green and quite seriously disabled him (Niles’ 
Register, December 29,1832). The editor of the Mercury denounced 
Blair for his attack and tried to show that the use of the term “Tory” 
was justifiable, not merely in its qualified English sense, but in its 
worst American sense, when applied to any who would side with the 
general government against South Carolina (Mercury, January 1, 

1833)- 


Jackson and Nullification 


239 


of war against the general government would be 
met by such a counter-manifesto. It put to 
flight all their solemn asseverations of the peace¬ 
ableness of their remedy, for it told them that 
resistance to the laws would be put down by the 
power with which Congress had armed the fed¬ 
eral executive to punish treason. 1 The Nullifiers 
were not at a loss for a reply, such as it was, to 
the taunt of the failure of their remedy as a 
peaceable one. They felt satisfied to say that 
the blame for such failure lay entirely with the 
President and the Union party, because they would 
not permit the Nullifiers to carry out all their 
plans as had been intended. 2 

In Virginia the proclamation had a marked 
effect. When the assembly met, shortly before 
the proclamation was issued, the factions within 
the Democratic party seemed to have united 
permanently, for W. C. Rives, an ardent adminis¬ 
tration man, was elected almost unanimously to 
the United States Senate to succeed John Tyler. 
After the proclamation, however, there appeared 
a Union party and a State Rights party, com¬ 
posed chiefly of representatives of the western 

1 Patriot, December 18, 1832. 

2 Mercury, December 7, 29, 1832. 


240 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

and eastern sections, respectively. The latter 
had control of the assembly by about ten votes. 
They passed resolutions praising South Carolina’s 
resistance but deploring her methods, denouncing 
the proclamation, and recommending a general 
convention in case Congress should not reduce the 
tariff; they sent a commissioner to South Caro¬ 
lina recommending less speedy action, and finished 
their work by returning John Tyler to the United 
States Senate when L. W. Tazewell resigned; 
Tyler sympathized with nullification and cast 
the only vote in the Senate against the force bill. 
But even this was far short of what the South 
Carolina Nullifiers had wanted. 1 

The sudden resignation of Tazewell, “con¬ 
nected with other signs of the times,” caused 
Jackson to fear that some secret plan was being 
hatched in Virginia. Just before the issue of 
his proclamation he had received from Virginia 
an expression of hope that he would not be too 
severe with South Carolina. After the Virginia 
action following the proclamation, Jackson as¬ 
serted that he had been “aware of the combina¬ 
tion between them and Calhoun & Co.,” and that 

1 Charles H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie, chap, v; also his Section¬ 
alism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, chap, vi; Jackson Papers: 
Poinsett to Jackson, January 7, 1833. 


Jackson and Nunification 


241 


the South Carolina leaders had been in great haste 
in order to get their “rebellious ordinance, .... 
nullifying doctrine, and rights of secession” sus¬ 
tained by the Virginia legislature. By the middle 
of January, however, the President was confident 
that Virginia, excepting a few Nullifiers and poli¬ 
ticians, was true to the core, and that he could 
march forty thousand men from that state in 
forty days. He was then, indeed, without doubt 
that he could get many times the troops needed, 
not simply from “good old Democratic Pennsyl¬ 
vania,” but from Tennessee, North Carolina, and 
all the western states. Although the New York 
legislature, because of political fears, disappointed 
him by its silence, he was assured that the people 
and the press were with him. 1 

1 Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, November 18, 
December 23, 1832; January 13, 25, 1833; Jackson Papers: John 
Randolph to Jackson, December 6, 1832; Jackson to Van Buren, 
January 25, 1833; James A. Hamilton to Jackson, New York, 
January 22, 1833. 

When James Hamilton, Jr., of South Carolina, visited Augusta 
in January, Jackson believed that it was in behalf of nullification; 
it was alleged that when the steamboat with Hamilton on board 
got a short distance from the wharf at Augusta the tricolored flag of 
South Carolina was raised on the boat and that the American Jack 
reversed was placed under it. When he heard of this Jackson said: 
“For this indignity to the flag of the country she ought to have been 
instantly sunk, no matter who owned or commanded her” (Van 
Buren Papers: Silas Wright, Jr., to Van Buren, January 13,1833). 


242 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

Virginians were not alone in their criticism of the 
doctrines contained in the proclamation. Some 
men of other states, most of them in sympathy 
with the President, believed that the document 
would have been a better one without the “specu¬ 
lative arguments and fallacious opinions about the 
origin of the confederation.” C. C. Cambreleng, 
of New York, wrote from Washington: 

We have those here who are now and then Republicans 
from policy but not one in principle—except the chief of 
all. This will account to you for the broad errors in doc¬ 
trine on some of the fundamental principles of the Con¬ 
stitution, which ornament the proclamation, and call forth 
the unbounded approbation of every ultra federalist. 
.... It was a glorious opportunity to reach every man 
in the nation but a nullifier .... [and] .... had the 
proclamation been as empty and inflated as a balloon, 
sentiment would have carried it through the Union with 
applause. 

A “general and happy effect” might have been 
made “universal” “had the metaphysics of the 
Montesquieu of the cabinet been cut out of it.” 1 

1 Van Buren Papers: C. C. Cambreleng to Van Buren, December 
18,1832. In another letter between December 10 and 18 Cambreleng 
said: “Luckily the people do not see what lawyers do; they don’t 
care how the Union was formed nor are they anxious to be instructed 
how a state can get out of it—they have more sense than the bar.” 
See also Van Buren to Jackson, December 27. The “ Montesquieu of 
the cabinet” was probably Edward Livingston, Secretary of State. 


Jackson and Nunification 


243 


In Columbia the proclamation was received with 
the deepest indignation, and the legislature, still 
in session, immediately asked the governor to 
issue a counter-proclamation to warn the people 
of South Carolina against that of the President and 
exhort them to remain true to the state. Robert 
Y. Hayne had been elected governor and had 
taken the new oath prescribed for that officer, 
that he would “well and truly keep and enforce 
the ordinance of the state and such laws as may 
be passed in obedience thereto.” He immediately 
issued his counter-proclamation, which began by 
calling upon the people to be on their guard 
against the “dangerous and pernicious” doctrines 
contained in the President’s proclamation, and 
concluded with a command for them to support at 
all hazards the dignity and liberties of the state. 1 
It was an ably written and strong paper, but the 
Union men could see no merit even in its literary 
composition. They ridiculed it as the height of 
madness, caused by an inflated sense of power. 2 

1 Mercury, December 22, 1832; Niles' Register, December 22. 

2 Gazette, December 22, 1832. The Union men published a parody 
on it, beginning thus: “By virtue of that palpable absurdity which 
has grown out of the numerous ‘conjunctures’ with which it has 
been our fate to be afflicted, that as a sovereign state the Free Trade 
Association ‘has the inherent power to do all those acts which by 


244 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

As for the ordinance of nullification, the Union 
men asserted that they were somewhat at a loss 
what classification to give to that “mad edict 
of a despotic majority”; whether it was to be 



considered as incorporated within the constitution 
of the state, as an act of legislation to be recorded 

the law of nations any prince or potentate may of right do,’ Governor 
Hayne has issued a proclamation counter to the one lately put 
forth by the President.” 

The accompanying maps (VII and VIII) show those districts 
whose delegates and representatives opposed the projects of the 
Nullifiers. See p. 107, n. 3. 





































Jackson and Nullification 


245 


in the statute books, or as a judicial decision 
to take its place in the next volume of law reports, 
they could not tell; this nondescript measure 
seemed to be an odd and incongruous jumble of 



the three, put together in utter disregard of rea¬ 
son and right; some said, indeed, that it was an 
exertion of lawless power which should be put down 
by the constituted authorities of the state or pros¬ 
trated by the potent rebuke of popular opinion. 1 

1 Courier, November 29, 1832. Perry Collection, Vol. IX, letter 
by Thomas S. Grimke to the People of South Carolina, December 1, 
1832. 





































































246 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Union men called a second convention of 
the party, which began its sessions in Columbia 
on December 10, while the legislature was still 
sitting. There appeared to be two factions at 
first: the conservatives, who favored moderation, 
and the radicals, who thought that the “tyranny 
and oppression of the dominant party, the disgrace 
of the test oath, and the horrors of disunion” 
should be “fiercely combatted.” All were soon 
won over to the belief that there should be no 
flinching. A plan was recommended for organiz¬ 
ing the Union men of the state into “Washington 
Societies,” for self-defense and protection; there 
was to be a central society in each district, with 
as many branches as possible in the local neigh¬ 
borhoods. In case of emergency these societies 
were to become military companies. Poinsett 
was made commander-in-chief, with division 
officers in different parts of the state, and Colonel 
Robert Cunningham was appointed for the upper 
divisions of the state. Joel R. Poinsett made it 
clear to the convention that President Jackson 
indorsed his plans, 1 and when James O. Hanlon 
read part of a letter from Jackson to the con¬ 
vention in secret session, it seemed to inspire 

1 Benjamin F. Perry, Reminiscences and Speeches. 


Jackson and Nullification 


247 


great courage, for “some cried out ‘enough! ’ ‘what 
have we to fear; we are right and God and Old 
Hickory are with us.’” 1 

This Union convention of about 180 delegates 
adopted an official protest against the ordinance 
of nullification. It reviewed the objections to 
the doctrine of nullification and denounced the 
ordinance as contrary to both the national and the 
state constitutions, and with special vigor decried 
the test oath, which would keep out of office all 
Union men who would not perjure themselves. It 
declared that as regarded the Union party the 
ordinance “betrayed all the features of an odious 
tyranny” and that its progress would be as fatal 
to liberty as it was to the federal Constitution. 
But one more step of the dominant party, it said, 
was wanting to put the 17,000 friends of the Union, 
so far as the state authorities were concerned, 
entirely out of the protection of the law. In 
regard to their own program, the Union men 
declared they would maintain a peaceable, inac¬ 
tive position as long as possible, asserting their 
rights by all legal and constitutional means; but 
if crossed in this by an attempt to enforce the 
“unconstitutional and tyrannically oppressive” 

1 Jackson Papers: James O. Hanlon to Jackson, December 20,1832. 


248 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

parts of the ordinance, they would feel bound 
to answer the call to resistance, issued by an 
“intolerable oppression,” and should they be 
forced to draw the sword, it would be wielded in 
defense of the Union. 1 

The President’s proclamation proved a conun¬ 
drum to the State Rights men in many ways. 
Some believed that it would overawe many of 
the less ardent in the state, and they there¬ 
fore made much of Governor Hayne’s counter¬ 
proclamation. 2 Many doubted that Jackson had 

1 Courier, December 21, 1832; Mountaineer , December 22. 
Perry Collection, Vol. IX, “Report of the Union Convention, with 
Their Remonstrance and Protest Perry Collection, Vol. IX, letter to 
the Union party of South Carolina, by Randell Hunt, January 2,1833. 

That the Union men were greatly stirred by the test oath was 
abundantly testified by such utterances as the following by Thomas 
Grimk6: “As though in mockery of the very name of judge and trial 
and jury as hitherto understood, they have bound the judge and jury 
to disregard the constitutions, law, and evidence, and to decide 
according to a fixed paramount rule. I envy not the judge or jury¬ 
man who is fit to be their instrument. Were I a judge or juryman, 
before I would pollute my soul and defile my lips with such an 
oath, this right hand should be struck off as a cockade for the cap of 
a dictator, or a sign-board to point the way to the gibbett” ( Gazette, 
December 15, 1832). 

2 James O. Hanlon wrote from Columbia to Jackson, on December 
20, 1832: “I find much excitement among the Nullies both in and out 
of the legislature. Your able and patriotic proclamation has almost 
given some of them the Cholera, and it would not show well for them 
to let it pass in silence” (Jackson Papers). 


Jackson and Nullification 


249 


intended more than to frighten South Carolina 
and felt that perhaps his appeal to Congress for 
more power was simply to furnish a means of 
retreat when Congress should have repealed the 
tariff and yielded to South Carolina. A major¬ 
ity of the leaders, however, felt that immediate 
military preparation was necessary, and many 
men eagerly aided the governor in his attempts to 
get a force ready for the field in the shortest time 
possible. 1 

1 The following letter was written by a man who had been a 
prominent editor of the state, but who was then a planter in Barnwell 
district, and who for many years was looked to, by many in the state, 
as a man whose political judgment was worth much (Hammond 
Papers: Hammond to Governor Hayne, December 20, 1832): “Gen¬ 
eral Jackson’s extraordinary proclamation has just reached me. It 
is the black cockade Federalism of ’98 renewed, fearfully invigorated 
by its long sleep, and seems destined to bring about another reign 
of terror. Based as it is upon the notoriously false assumption 
that South Carolina intends to resist the laws of Congress with the 
bayonet, the spirit of it, to every intelligent mind, is as ridiculous 
as its arguments are absurd. But there is so much ignorance and 
passion in the country that both are dangerous at this crisis, and 
must be met promptly, firmly, and efficiently. To aid this purpose 
permit me to tender you my services in any way that you can make 
them most useful. I do not seek from you any post of distinction, 
not only because I can have no claims to it, but because at this 
moment every man must do his duty to his country without reference 
to himself. I will undertake any service you desire, and repair at 
an instant’s warning to any point and for any purpose you will 
designate. I shall immediately set about arranging my private 


250 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

After the middle of December Governor 
Hayne’s office was transformed from that of an 
executive to that of a commander-in-chief. “ Gen¬ 
eral Orders” were issued from “Head Quarters,” 
on December 20, 1832, that in accordance with a 
recent act of the legislature the services of patriotic 
citizens as volunteers would be accepted, “either 
individually or by companies, troops, battalions, 
divisions, or regiments, of artillery, cavalry, or 
riflemen. ’’ The governor on the same day selected 
prominent State Rights leaders in each district 
and commissioned them in due form as aides-de- 

affairs for taking the field at an early day, not to quit it until all is 
settled. 

“In this part of the country the people are very ignorant and have 
been heretofore rather inclined to the Union party, but if you think 
I can be best employed in recruiting volunteers I will set about 
raising a company as soon as I receive your instructions as to the 
time and place [you] will want them, and whether you can furnish 
arms, etc., and will endeavor to have them ready for service in due 
time. I have however no choice of employment, so far as I am 

concerned.I take it for granted that you will concentrate 

a large force in Charleston to meet the emergency. Permit me again 
with much humility to suggest that that concentration be effected 
silently and without parade; we have already done enough to alarm 
the more timid of our friends and to afford apparent grounds of 
justification for the mad counsels of the President. At the same time 
care should be taken to have the force strong enough to annihilate 
instantaneously .the first show of resistance to our laws, and give to 
treason as well as tyranny so signal and severe a rebuke that they 
will not recover from it soon.” 



Jackson and Nullification 


25 1 


camp charged with military duties in their respec¬ 
tive districts. They were directed to inspect 
volunteer companies and to receive and give 
information, and were supplied with blank com¬ 
missions to issue to the officers of such companies 
as were raised or accepted from those already in 
existence. They were requested to make full and 
frequent reports to the governor’s headquarters at 
Charleston. 1 

The general plans of the governor, as out¬ 
lined in a printed circular sent to all the aides- 
de-camp as district organizers, 2 announced that 
he wanted to raise a volunteer force not short 
of 10,000 men. Measures were taken to procure 
an ample supply of arms of various descrip¬ 
tions to be distributed as soon as secured, and 
arrangements were made for the distribution 
of books on tactics to infantry and cavalry 
companies. In this circular letter, after mak¬ 
ing general explanations of the duties of the 
district aides-de-camp, the governor outlined a 

1 Hammond Papers: commission from Governor Hayne to 
Colonel James H. Hammond, December 20, 1832; letter from Hayne 
to Hammond, December 21. 

2 The one sent to Hammond and marked “(Confidential)” in 
Hayne’s handwriting is in the Hammond Papers, dated December 26. 
1832. 


252 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

plan of “The Most Important Nature.” He 
said: 

The volunteer corps above alluded to are intended to 
be called out by companies, battalions, or regiments, but 
a sudden emergency may arise when men may be wanted 
at a given point before such corps can be prepared and 
marched to it. I deem it indispensable, therefore, that a 
body of Mounted Minute Men should be always prepared 
to proceed in the shortest time possible to any place 
which may be designated, to be kept on duty for a few days 
or a few weeks, until more regularly organized corps shall 
be brought into the field. My plan is this. Let a number 
of men, every one of whom keeps a horse, agree to repair 
at a moment’s warning to any point which may be desig¬ 
nated by the governor in any emergency. Let them then 
come prepared with guns or rifles, or arms of any descrip¬ 
tion, with a supply of powder and ball, and come in the 
shortest time possible. If in each district only one 
hundred such men could be secured, we would have the 
means of throwing 2,500 of the elite of the whole state 
upon a given point in three or four days. And by no 
other means could this be effected. 

To execute this plan, it may be well to select ten influ¬ 
ential men in various parts of your district, to be called 
leaders; bring them fully into the scheme, and let each 
of them engage ten men as their quota. When the notice 
is given to you, that the minute men are wanted, you will 
instantly inform the leaders and get them to extend the 
notice to their respective squads.Have one or more 




Jackson and Nullification 


253 


expresses always at your command and bear in mind that 
you will be held responsible for the speedy and certain 
extension and prompt execution of all orders. If you need 
assistance say so, for no excuse will be received for any 

failure, when your services are required.I wish 

you to see personally each of the colonels and learn 
everything within your district; the temper of the 
men; the state of their arms; whether those out of 
order can be repaired in your neighborhood; and what 
supplies exist of field-pieces, muskets, rifles, lead, etc., 
and generally everything, which it is important for me 
to know; all of which may be embraced in a confidential 
report. 

The district organizers soon enlisted a number 
of men as sub-organizers, who distributed circulars 
in which appeared the governor’s call for volun¬ 
teers, and did all they could personally to induce 
the people to enlist. These men kept the district 
commander informed as to local sentiment. From 
some quarters came reports that Jackson’s procla¬ 
mation, aided by the activity of the Union men, 
had done much harm, for the people seemed to 
think that the President could do all he had 
threatened, and they regarded him as in fact “the 
Ali Pasha of the United States.” From such 
quarters came the advice that the district organizer 
himself should appear and renew the spirits of the 



254 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

people . 1 From other quarters came more cheer¬ 
ful news . 2 Some of the State Rights leaders 
seemed to think that all that was needed was for 
the people of the state to show a proper spirit, 
and force would not be used; but if they faltered, 
a little blood would be spilled to complete the 
panic . 3 

1 Hammond Papers: S. It. Butler to Hammond, December 27, 
1832. 

2 Hammond Papers: S. R. Cannon to Hammond, December 28, 

1832: . . . the President’s proclamation has been the cause of 

making us more Indignant towards him than before, we have 
commenced Raising a volunteer corps of Rifle men and will holde an 
Election for Officers in few days .... we are all nullifyers in this 
Section and the General fealing amongst us that will Put us in 
Readiness at a moments warning.” 

3 Hammond Papers: S. H. Butler to Hammond, December 27, 
1832: William C. Preston to Hammond, December 31. Pres¬ 
ton, a prominent leader, wrote from Columbia to Hammond on the 
last day of the year that he was much pleased with the effect the 
proclamation was having both in and out of the state, for party lines 
were being clearly drawn. “Thank God,” he wrote, “we are again 
Federalists and Republicans. In Virginia especially the proclama¬ 
tion has wakened the people from their trance, and they are holding 

meetings in the counties, with the rallying cry of ’98.My 

private advices are of the most cheering character; they assure me 
that whatever the legislature may do, it will be believed the temper 
of the people. They tell me that it is only necessary for us to present 
a determined front, and all will be well. We have compelled a more 
rapid course of thought than twenty years of discussion would have 
produced. We have shaken the tariff system more than a thousand 
remonstrances and petitions and protests. Their columns are giving 



Jackson and Nullification 


255 


The Union men were “openly threatened with 
every kind of violence,” and in a district where 
their number was small they were told that they 
must not assemble togther, for such action would 
be considered “treason and rebellion” against 
the sovereignty of the state . 1 

Meantime, Jackson had been waiting for 
information that the South Carolina assembly 
had passed laws for raising an army to resist the 
execution of the United States laws. This he 

way, there is confusion in their lines; and if we are now true to our¬ 
selves, they will be scattered to the winds. The vigorous pro¬ 
ceedings of our constituted authorities has struck terror into our 
oppressors, and the spirit of the people bursting out in all quarters has 
written their destiny on the wall in characters too plain to require a 
Daniel for their interpretation. 

“In this quarter the public enthusiasm is more intense than my 
best hopes could have anticipated. Everybody is volunteering— 
old and young, the parent and his sons, rich and poor are found in 
the ranks shoulder to shoulder. Even the ministers of the gospel 
have turned soldiers.The town begins to resemble a mili¬ 

tary encampment. An equal enthusiasm, it is said, pervades Fair- 
field; there they will volunteer by regiments. Lexington will give 
an organized battalion. The tyrant will find us ready and dare not 
strike. Our decided front will secure us at once peace and victory. 
The volunteer roll will decide the contest. We have agreed here for 
the sake of distinction, every volunteer shall wear at all times a small 
blue cockade upon his hat, that we may know each other when we 


'Jackson Papers: James O. Hanlon to Jackson, December 20, 
1832. 




256 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

would interpret to be “a levying of war” and he 
would ask Congress— 

for the power to call upon volunteers to serve as the posse 
comitatus of the civil authority, to open our courts which 
they have shut, direct process to be issued against the 
leaders, direct them to be prosecuted for treason, have 
them arrested wheresoever to be found, delivered over to 
the authority of the law, to be prosecuted, convicted, and 
punished. If the assembly authorises twelve thousand 

meet and establish upon sight that sympathy which should exist 
between men devoted to the same glorious cause. Let me recom¬ 
mend this measure to you and also that as soon as there is a com¬ 
pany organized in your neighborhood you inform me or some other 
friend here of the fact, with names of the officers, that we may devise 
a system of correspondence and union, which will establish a com¬ 
munity of feeling and action amongst us. In the meantime do write 
me of the movements and the state of feeling in your quarter.” 

On the same day, December 31, 1832, Captain E. H. Maxcy 
in Columbia issued company orders to the Richland Volunteer Rifle 
Company “to hold themselves in readiness to march, at a minute’s 
warning, and without delay, to any point in the State which may be 
designated by the proper authority, to perform such military service, 
in defence of the State, as may be required. Each member will 
forthwith put his rifle and accoutrements in complete order, furnish 
himself with a sufficient quantity of powder and ball, a coarse home- 
spun knapsack with a blanket, and the requisite change of clothing. 
Upon being notified, each man will promptly repair to the Town Hall, 
to be mustered into service at the minute designated. Upon the 
reception of marching orders, a fieldpiece will be fired five times in 
succession as a signal for assembling.” The company was ordered 
to report on Saturday morning, January 5, 1833, “for drill and 
target firing” (22d Congress, 2d session, House Document No. 45, 
p. 112). 


Jackson and Nunification 


257 


men to resist the law, I will order thirty thousand to 
execute the law. To this I may add the request for the 
custom house to be removed to Castle Pinckney on 
Sullivan’s Island, and the power in the Secretary of the 
Treasury to demand the payment of duties in cash, 
deducting the interests, from all vessels entering a port 
where the states may have enacted laws to resist the 
payment of the duty. 1 

By the end of December the President was 
feeling even more bitterly on the subject. He 
wrote: 

This abominable doctrine, that strikes at the root of 
our government and the social compact, and reduces 
everything to anarchy, must be met and put down or 
our Union is gone, and our liberties with it forever. The 
true Republican doctrine is, that the people are the sover¬ 
eign power, that they have the right to establish such form 
of government [as] they please, and we must look into the 
Constitution, which they have established, for the powers 
expressly granted, the balance being retained to the people 
and the states. When we look into the [Articles of] 
Confederation of the thirteen United States of America, 
we find there a perpetual union; and that it might 
last forever, we find the express power granted to Con¬ 
gress to settle all disputes that may arise between the 
states. What next—we find upon experience that this 
perpetual union and confederation is not perfect. On 
this discovery, “We the people of these United States,” 

‘Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, December 15, 1832. 


258 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

“to form a more perfect union” etc., etc., do ordain and 
establish this Constitution as the supreme law of the land. 
When we look into the instrument we can find no reserved 
right to nullify or secede; but we find a positive provision 
how it is to be altered or amended. These must be 
adopted or it must be changed by revolution. When 
this is attempted by a state, a perfect right remains in the 
other states and the people, if they have the power, to 
coerce them to obey the laws and preserve their moral 
obligations to the other. Let us remark one absurdity 
out of thousands that could be named. Congress have 
power to admit new states into the Union; under terri¬ 
torial governments these [are] bound by the laws of the 
Union; new states cannot force themselves into the 
Union; but the moment they are admitted, they have a 
right to secede and destroy the confederation and the 
Union with it. The Virginia doctrine brings me in mind 
of a bag of sand with both ends opened; the moment the 
least pressure is upon it, the sand flows out at each end. 
The absurdity is too great to be dwelt on. The people 
of Virginia are sound. The Union will be preserved 
and traitors punished, by a due execution of the laws, 
by the posse comitatus . 1 

Letters of this character worried Van Buren. 
He feared that Jackson, too impulsive by nature, 
might lessen the chances of an amicable adjust- 

1 Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, December 23, 
1832. On December 25 he wrote again in much the same manner 
to Van Buren. 


Jackson and Nullification 


259 


ment. He therefore, as on many another occa¬ 
sion, advised caution. He urged especially that, 
in view of the fact that the doctrine of a “con¬ 
structive levying of war” was “justly unpopular 
in this country,” the President should hesitate 
to pronounce as treason the mere passage of 
bills, and should ask Congress for the power 
to employ military force only if it was indispen¬ 
sable to the due execution of the laws. 1 

While Jackson was thinking so much about 
meeting at the threshold any danger to the Union, 
Van Buren and the great majority of those with 
whom the President was in correspondence seem 
to have been thinking much more of the political 
phases of the issue. Although Jackson himself 
thought occasionally of the influence of the 
Nullifiers upon the elections, it was far from 
uppermost in his mind. During the fall of 1832 
he felt confident that they could do little harm 
to him or Van Buren outside of South Carolina. 
To Amos Kendall it appeared at first that the 
issue would have the happy political effect of 
uniting with the friends of the administration all 
parties in the northern, middle, and western states 
and a large portion of the South, including even 

1 Van Buren Papers: Van Buren to Jackson, December 27, 1832. 


260 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

many of the National Republicans. But upon 
second thought he agreed with Van Buren that 
they must neither court the Nationals nor meet 
their advances. Webster and Calhoun must be 
kept at arm’s length on either side. 1 

They must be on their guard against Clay also, 
and with this in view as well as for the purpose of 
quieting South Carolina and preventing the spread 
of sentiment in favor of a southern convention, 
the tariff must be reduced in 1833 to prevent 
“Clay and his satellites” from having about six 
millions of surplus revenue to deal out for internal 
improvements at the long session of 1833-34, 
when all the surplus in the treasury would become 
a bribery fund for debauching the states and buy¬ 
ing presidential votes. Indeed, Van Buren and 
the New York delegation in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives might win increased popularity by 
having the tariff reduction come under their 
auspices. 2 

The combined influence of the “Triumvirs,” 
Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, was much to be 

1 Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, August 30, October, 
23, 1832; Amos Kendall to Van Buren, November 2, 10. 

2 Van Buren Papers: Thomas H. Benton to Van Buren, December 
16,1832. 


Jackson and Nullification 


261 


feared, if such a strange combination were really 
formed against the administration. Their cue 
seemed to be to refuse to reduce the tariff and lay 
the blame on Van Buren, or reduce it and secure 
the credit for themselves. It was early seen 
that when the danger of a disruption of the gov¬ 
ernment should become imminent, Clay would 
endeavor to step forward as the mediator, the 
great pacificator, and secure the presidency as his 
reward. At all events New York was to be 
deprived of the credit for an adjustment. In 
spite of such fears in many quarters, Van Buren 
believed that if any adjustment of the tariff 
were made at the existing session of Congress, no 
large share of the credit for it would be given to 
Clay and Calhoun. 1 

1 Van Buren Papers: Michael Hoffman to Van Buren, December 
19, 1832; January 4, 1833; Hoffman to A. C. Flagg, January 4; 
M. Dickerson to Van Buren, January 11; Cambreleng to Van Buren, 
February 5; Van Buren to Jackson, February 20; Jackson Papers: 
W. R. King to Van Buren, January 9. 


CHAPTER VIII 


NULLIFICATION SUSPENDED (1833) 

Congress was in session while South Carolina 
was making her hostile preparations. The ordi¬ 
nance of nullification, together with the acts of the 
legislature providing the means for carrying it into 
force, was to become effective on February 1, 
1833, unless, of course, Congress before that date 
repealed the protective features of the tariff. 
Everybody eagerly watched for indications of 
such action. 

William Drayton carefully sounded the mem¬ 
bers of Congress and found that with a few 
exceptions from the South and West they were 
opposed to nullification as “an absurd and mis¬ 
chievous paradox.” Several members of the 
Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia delegations, 
with some few from other states, contended for 
the right of peaceable secession by a sovereign 
state, but a large majority of Congress regarded 
the right as “merely a revolutionary one, the 
practical exercise of which the United States 
might and ought to suppress .... by physical 

262 


Nullification Suspended 


263 


force if necessary.” Notwithstanding a general 
accordance with these sentiments, all the repre¬ 
sentatives with whom Drayton conferred declared 
their willingness and anxiety to co-operate in the 
furtherance of any reasonable expedient which 
might prevent a conflict between South Carolina 
and the federal government. To this end “ several 
of the thorough-going tariffites” told him that 
they “would submit to great sacrifices of the 
pecuniary interests of the manufacturers by voting 
for large deductions from the rate of protective 
duties.” This accounted for the Verplanck bill. 

Although the Senate was believed to be less 
favorably disposed toward the bill than the House, 
Drayton thought that all signs pointed to the 
growing favor of free trade everywhere, and that 
surely by the next session, if not in this one, a satis¬ 
factory reduction would be made. He thought 
that the Nullifiers ought to see this and postpone 
action until after the next session. 1 Calhoun, 
too, as the session progressed, thought that the 
prospect was good for a satisfactory adjustment 
and that the scheme of coercion would be aban¬ 
doned if the South Carolina people continued 
firm but prudent and gave no occasion for the 

1 Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, December 31, 1832. 


264 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

use of force. 1 From all sides came testimony 
that everything was promising for a reduction 
of the tariff, as both parties now seemed to admit 
the necessity of it. 2 The question still remained, 
however: Would it be a reduction acceptable to 
the State Rights party ? 

Some men, however, believed that no reduc¬ 
tion of the tariff would be voted, because there 
was a party in the North just as desirous of a 
separation of the sections as any faction in South 
Carolina. According to this view, the tariff 
advocates not favored by the taxes desired dis¬ 
union, and the aristocracy in both sections saw 
in disunion a “multiplication of offices and taxes 
by which alone they can live without labor on 
the sweat and toil of the people.” Other men 
believed that though the existing Congress would 
not reduce the tariff, the composition of the new 
Congress guaranteed a reduction which could be 
accomplished by special session in April or May. 3 

1 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to J. E. Calhoun, January 
10, 1833. 

2 Mountaineer, January 12, 1833; Messenger, January 23; Niles’ 
Register, January 5. 

3 Van Buren Papers: Michael Hoffman to Van Buren, December 
7, 19, 1832; Hoffman to A. C. Flagg, December 18;' T. H. Benton to 
Van Buren, December 16. 


Nullification Suspended 


265 


Some of the Union papers, soon after they 
saw an inclination on the part of Congress to yield 
on the tariff, began to express the hope that 
Congress would not yield in such a way as to give 
the Nullifiers the credit of a victory. Writers in 
these papers pointed out that if Congress yielded 
to the usurpation of undelegated power by a party 
which never fairly represented the “honest 
desires and opinions of the state,” so long as the 
ordinance and acts of nullification remained unre¬ 
pealed ; if it should be intimidated into concessions 
by the South Carolina hotspurs; then the people 
would know that thenceforth a supreme law of the 
land could be made void by a state convention 
“fraudulently obtained” whenever it might suit 
the purpose of a few ambitious individuals. 1 

The State Rights party then accused the 
Unionists of being in league with the northern 


1 Mercury, January 3, 1833; Gazette, January 3. Such assertions 
that the convention had been “fraudulently obtained” and did not 
fairly represent “the honest desires and opinions of the state” were 
untrue, for they were based on the assumption that the people were 
deceived by the nullification leaders and tricked into voting for a 
convention, feeling confident that it would adopt a “peaceable” 
remedy. The greater part of the people who voted for the con¬ 
vention secured in its action just what they wanted and expected. 
That these acts produced results different from those anticipated 
was beside the point. 


266 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


manufacturers to prevent a tariff reduction, and de¬ 
clared that if the present session of Congress failed 
to modify the tariff as the South demanded, and 
bloodshed and disunion followed, the Union party 
would be responsible. They insisted that the 
Union party had at last disclosed its true colors 
by hoisting the “genuine Black Flag of Tariff- 
ism.” They claimed that a review of the course 
followed by the Union party would show that 
it had continually tried to reconcile the state 
to the tariff, and had in fact encouraged 
the northern manufacturers to persist in their 
course. 1 

The Union party answered that it was still, as 
it had been, bitterly opposed to the tariff, and 
wanted every possible constitutional means em¬ 
ployed to remove it, but that it did not want the 
tariff lowered under the menace of the nullification 
ordinance. Not a few of the Union men felt as 
Drayton did, that if the tariff reduction then 
being considered were passed, and the Nullifiers in 
consequence thereof should suspend all further 
proceedings under the recent laws of the legis¬ 
lature, the gratification of these Union men at 
the partial or total repeal of the protective system 

1 Mercury, January 3, 7, 1833; Messenger, January 16. 


Nullification Suspended 


267 


would be not a little diminished because of the 
triumph it would afford the Nullifiers; for they 
“would ascribe to their own miserable sophistry 
and corrupting intrigues this abandonment of a 
system which, without their conventional and 
legislative usurpations, was already expiring, 
from the conviction which for a considerable time 
past” had “been spreading among the people 
even in the tariff states, that its foundations” 
were “built upon selfishness and monopolizing 
cupidity.” 1 

The State Rights party then pointed out that 
the position of the Union party meant that it stood 
for an “unlimited central consolidated govern¬ 
ment,” with the states absolutely at its mercy. 2 
In order further to prove that the Union party 
was in league with the central government, the 
State Rights presses made much of a story that, 
according to the confessions of Union men them¬ 
selves, the President’s proclamation and all of his 


Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, January 13, 1833; 
Courier, January 4, 8,1833; Patriot, January 11,14. Poinsett looked 
upon this as a consideration of minor importance (Jackson Papers: 
Poinsett to Jackson, January 7). 

2 Mercury, January 8, 1833. And this pointed out, indeed, the 
real issue; it was the old question of adjustment of power between 
the central government and the states. 


268 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

plans in handling the South Carolina situation 
had been and still were concocted in Charleston 
by the Union party. 1 

Even though things did look promising at 
Washington, the State Rights men went ahead 
with their military organization. From many 
parts of the state came reports to the governor 
that men were volunteering readily for the 
militia, and that new companies were being 
formed. 2 Details were being perfected for a 
movement of troops from the interior to the coast; 
depots of supplies of bacon, fodder, corn, etc., 
were established on the lines of march decided 
upon for the various companies, battalions, and 
regiments. 3 In some districts the degree of 
enthusiasm desired by the State Rights leaders 
was lacking, and it was difficult to get a company 
of minute men willing to make the sacrifices 

1 Ttlescope, January 8, 1833; Messenger, January 2; Mercury, 
January 11. 

2 The Hammond Papers contain some orders coming from, and 
reports going to, William E. Hayne, assistant adjutant inspector- 
general at Charleston, as to the organization of the army. Letters 
by Hammond to Governor Hayne, January 8, 1833, and to William 
C. Preston, January 10, show that this work was kept up unceasingly. 
See Mercury, January 5, 14; Messenger, January 9, 23, February 2. 

3 Hammond Papers: Francis W. Pickens to Hammond, January 
14, 1833; Hammond to Pickens, January 18. 


Nullification Suspended 


269 


entailed. 1 All of this preparation was formidable 
enough to cause many citizens to leave the state. 3 

During January the President was often in¬ 
formed of the trend of affairs in South Carolina, 
and he became ever more convinced of the 

1 Hammond Papers: Hammond to Governor Hayne, January 23, 
1833: “The people of Barnwell are generally very poor, and, though 
staunch yeomanry, not generally so public spirited I find as some of 
our neighbors. If drafted there is not a Nullifier in the district and 
few Union men who would not cheerfully take up arms; they would 
make soldiers that might be depended on; but as to volunteering, they 
do not understand it and are not inclined to put themselves to un¬ 
necessary trouble. The fact is that there are not intelligent men 
enough sprinkled about to stir them up, and that they have gone 
right heretofore I attribute to mere instinct. Whenever they can be 
collected together I have never failed to produce some ardor among 
them; but in so large a district, so sparsely populated, it is difficult 
to get them together, and they know so little of the matter that one 
exhortation does not last long. I mentioned these things to show 
you why there has not been so spontaneous a burst of patriotism here 
as elsewhere.” 

2 The Sumter Whig stated that if the tide of emigration from that 
district continued as it had gone on for the past two months, Sumter 
would soon literally be a waste and howling wilderness. And it was 
a matter deemed worthy of remark that it was not the Union men 
generally—the “spiritless submissionists,” as they had been scorn¬ 
fully termed—but chiefly the “brave spirits, the pinks of chivalry, 
the fire and brimstone eaters,” who had “suddenly been enlightened 
as to the vast advantages of the western country, and were leaving 
South Carolina in the midst of her troubles.” “They were going 
to leave the glorious triumph of nullification behind them and seek a 
continuance of their oppressions in the West,” the Mountaineer put 
it. See Mountaineer, January 12, 1833; Niles’ Register, January 19. 


270 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

necessity of prompt and effective measures. 
“The modern doctrine of nullification and seces¬ 
sion [must be] put down forever, for we have yet 
to learn whether some of the eastern states may 
not secede or nullify if the tariff is reduced. I 
have to look at both ends of the Union to preserve 
it.” He must, he declared, at once ask Congress 
to give the United States officers power sufficient 
to thwart the Nullifiers. Their leaders were to be 
prosecuted for treason, and if they were “sur¬ 
rounded by 12,000 bayonets, our marshall” should 
“be aided by 24,000 and arrest them in the midst 
thereof. Nothing must be permitted to weaken 
our government at home or abroad.” He was 
said to believe that no tariff bill could prevent an 
open rupture, but to hope that one might be 
passed which would keep the other southern states 
quiet while he disciplined “Messrs. Calhoun, 
Hamilton, and Hayne”; without any bill, much 
was to be feared from the whole South, including 
even Tennessee. The Secretary of War was said 
to agree with this view. 1 

Jackson’s plan did not thoroughly satisfy the 
Unionists of Charleston, for they were disinclined 

'Van Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, January 13, 1833; 
Silas Wright, Jr., to Van Buren, January 13. 


Nullification Suspended 


271 


to join in mortal conflict with their adversaries as 
a part of a posse comitatus called out by the 
United States marshal. “ There is scarcely a fam¬ 
ily wherein some member is not in the opposite 
ranks,” wrote Poinsett. They feared that such 
a plan would not succeed, and that they would 
find themselves prisoners of the state. They pre¬ 
ferred that the marshal and the federal judge 
should certify that they could not execute the 
law, whereupon the President could call out the 
militia and the Unionists would obey the call. 
They would continue their military organization, 
though at the disadvantage of having to do it 
secretly, and would be prepared to go into open 
warfare with the aid of the general government. 
They should, they held, be prepared to strike the 
moment troops began to move from the interior 
toward Charleston, for if the Nullifiers were per¬ 
mitted to occupy the city, it would cost much 
blood to dislodge them. 1 

As the time approached when the ordinance 
of nullification would go into effect, things were 
still unsettled in Congress, but there was a good 
prospect of a satisfactory adjustment if a little 
more time were given. This circumstance, 

1 Jackson Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, January 16, 20, 1833. 


272 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

together with the fact that the State Rights mili¬ 
tary force had few arms as yet and was in a state 
of organization by no means efficient, caused 
the State Rights men to think that it would be 
best to postpone the date for putting the ordinance 
into action. A meeting of the party was held in 
Charleston on January 21. At this meeting were 
many men who were looked upon as the leaders of 
the party and whose word was in fact the party 
law. A set of resolutions was introduced, sup¬ 
ported by these men, and adopted by the meeting, 
recommending that a collision with the federal 
government should be avoided until Congress 
had had an opportunity to modify the tariff, and 
declaring that in case a satisfactory modification 
did not follow, state action was to proceed. 
The President and his measures received their 
customary share of denunciation. General James 
Hamilton, Jr., spoke earnestly for the resolutions, 
and said that he had a cargo of sugar coming 
from Havana, which he would allow to go into the 
custom-house stores and await events; he would 
cause no unnecessary collision, but he felt sure 
that, if their hopes of a satisfactory adjustment 
of the question were disappointed, his fellow- 
citizens would go even to death with him for his 


Nullification Suspended 273 

sugar. This was greeted with a unanimous burst 
of applause, and “even to death with Hamilton 
for his sugar” became a slogan. 1 

There were also other considerations which 
prompted delay. It was pointed out that they 
could now pause in honor, since the President’s 
message of January 16, asking for acts of Con¬ 
gress to give him additional power to use in case 
of conflict with South Carolina, was a consider¬ 
able descent from the lofty position assumed in his 
proclamation. 3 The Nullifiers maintained that 
the President’s last message fairly admitted the 
peaceful character of nullification under existing 
laws, for it seemed to require extraordinary 
legislation to give either the President or the col¬ 
lector any lawful means to counteract the state’s 
ordinance. Then, too, there had been received 
from various quarters in other southern states 
reports that the doctrine of nullification was not 
regarded favorably, and the state of Virginia, 
through its legislature, had requested South 
Carolina to desist, at least temporarily, and had 
sent a special messenger, Benjamin W. Leigh, in 
an effort toward mediation. Many there were 

1 Mercury, January 23, 1833. 

2 Mercury, January 21, 23, 1833. 


274 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

who believed that Virginia and the other southern 
states deserved at least the concession of a pause. 1 

Others there were, however, who stood with the 
district of Barnwell, which, prompted by James 
H. Hammond, had expressed itself in favor of the 
rejection of any mediation from other states ur¬ 
ging a suspension of the ordinance, unless it was 
accompanied by a pledge to prevent the enforce¬ 
ment of the tariff within their limits if it was not 
repealed in a given time. 2 The views of the 
radicals, who were for yielding not at all, were 
expressed by Hammond when he wrote: 

I am satisfied that every stratagem will be resorted 
to by the administration to induce South Carolina to 
suspend her ordinance and I am not sure that a majority of 
the politicians in power in Virginia are not corrupt enough 
to prostitute her to this purpose, without intending to do 
more than prostrate our state if possible. Let the ordi¬ 
nance be suspended and their game is manifest. The 

1 Journal, January 19, February 9, 1833; Courier, February 2; 
Niles' Register, February 9. When the force bill and the compromise 
tariff were before Congress, Leigh confessed that if the former should 
pass and the latter fail, South Carolina would probably not listen 
to the voice of Virginia; if the Nullifiers did “go on,” the eastern 
part of Virginia would remain neutral and the western section would 
take part against them. See Jackson Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, 
February 9. 

2 Hammond Papers: Hammond to Preston, January 10, 1833; 
Preston to Hammond, January 14. 


Nullification Suspended 


275 


tariff will be so lowered as to take away (it is hoped) the 
chief cause of our excitement, and render it impossible 
to get the people ever again to nullify. The principle 
however is to remain untouched, and after a few years of 
respiration the assault again to be made upon our purses 
and our liberty. 1 

And this, in fact, proved a fair prophecy of what 
did take place. Hammond believed that the 
people of South Carolina were now ready to 
nullify a protecting tariff of even 1 per cent, but 
that the other states would accept a slight 
reduction of the tariff and that South Caro¬ 
lina would then lose the formidable power she 
derived from the sympathy of fellow-sufferers. 
Nullification would then surely end in civil 
war. 

The resolutions of the meeting of the State 
Rights party of the Charleston congressional 
and judicial districts, with a speaker or two from 
the interior, were indorsed by the party at large, 
and nullification was suspended without further 
formality. Thereupon Union men remarked that 
the sovereignty of the state was in an awkward 
predicament. The Charleston State Rights con¬ 
vocation had apparently determined its supremacy 


1 Hammond Papers: Hammond to Preston, January 10, 1833. 


276 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

over the convention. The injunctions laid by the 
convention on the citizen were positive that he 
should pay no duties under the acts of 1828 and 
1832 after February 1; but this solemn determina¬ 
tion of the sovereignty of South Carolina had 
been superseded. The Union men were pleased 
with the moderation of the State Rights party in 
recommending to its members that they refrain 
from contention while the subject of the tariff 
was so near a settlement; but that such a recom¬ 
mendation proceeded from a local meeting showed 
in what inconsistency the party had involved 
itself. 1 

Even though the process of nullification had 
been suspended, the Nullifiers continued their 
recruiting, for along with the plans for tariff re¬ 
form the Wilkins force bill had been introduced, 
to provide for the forcible collection of the duties 
if necessary. Parades and reviews were staged to 
arouse interest and encourage enlistment. James 
H. Hammond, a district commander, reported in 
the first week of February that the commander- 
in-chief could count on 850 men in Barnwell, 
about two-thirds of the fighting men; in the 
last week in the same month he reported that 

1 Patriot, January 23, 1833. 


Nullification Suspended 277 

925 had volunteered. 1 To the first report he 
added: 

The late movements in Congress have excited the people 
very much, and if Wilkins’ bill becomes a law they will be 
prepared for anything. The decided impression now is 
that there will be a war, and the idea appears to excite 
the people. The shock that was felt upon the first indica¬ 
tion of settling our controversy with the sword is wearing 
off and there is every prospect of as much unanimity 
among the people on this question as any of a political 
character whether of war or peace that was ever proposed 
to them. 

In commenting on the spirit at a recent review, 
at which speeches by himself, William C. Preston, 
and S. H. Butler did much to “make the people 
sound,” Hammond said: 

Every one seemed ready to fight, and all appear ani¬ 
mated by a most thorough conviction that we are uncon¬ 
querable. I am sure the difficulty with us will not be the 
want of men but officers and means. It will take one 
year at least to make our army efficient in point of dis¬ 
cipline. The United States have greatly the advantage 
in this respect, and no human power can remedy the defect 
at once. We should by all means have a military depart¬ 
ment in the college. In regard to money it is important 
to be looking out even now. We shall certainly have to 

1 Hammond Papers: Hammond to Hayne, February 7, 24, 1833. 


278 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

borrow money, and the moment a blow is struck negotia¬ 
tions should be set on foot for straining our credit to the 
utmost at once, when it will be best. In the meantime 
the private resources of the Whigs should be taken into 
consideration. On this point, I wish to speak for myself 
at once. I hold my property, all of it, as much at the 
service of the state as my life; but to calculate on some¬ 
thing short of extremities I think I can furnish you next 
year with the proceeds of an hundred bales of cotton. I 
did think of making a large provision crop, but reflecting 
that I was on the frontier of Georgia and flanked on all 
sides with Union men I thought perhaps it would be safer 
to plant cotton and furnish the state with the proceeds. If 
the seasons are ordinary I can afford to give at least one 
hundred bales without depriving myself of the means 
of meeting the contingent expenses of my official situation. 
For this I will take the state’s certificate, or no certificate 
if the times require it. If it should be preferred, I would 
cheerfully turn over to the service of the state, from the 
time the first movement is made, all my efficient male 
force to be employed in ditching, fortifying, building, etc. 
—of course not to bear arms, which would be dangerous 
policy to be justified only by the greatest extremities. 
.... I trust no resort will be made now at least to 
increased taxation; the people would not bear it what¬ 
ever our descendants may have to do. 1 

1 Hammond Papers: Hammond to Hayne, February 7, 1833. 
Here was a young planter, but lately married, willing to give not 
merely his services but his whole means of support to the cause of 
the state. A most bitter and intense spirit of hostility to the North 
was being developed, which may well be taken into account in con- 


Nullification Suspended 


279 


One great obstacle which the Nullifiers met 
in organizing their military force was a lack of 
arms. Governor Hayne sent out word that the 
demand for arms exceeded five times the number 
in the possession of the state. “Our supplies,” 
he wrote, “come in slowly; we have no manu¬ 
factories, and indeed the finances of the state 
would be exhausted in procuring half the number 
of arms that have been called for. You will see 
at once, therefore, that a strong appeal must be 
made to the patriotism of the people to furnish 
themselves with arms and equipments.” He 
believed that what arms the state did possess must 
be husbanded until actual work in the field was 
needed; this was a precaution necessary to keep 
them in the best of condition. However, a small 
issue was made to supply some of those troops who 
could not supply themselves. James H. Ham¬ 
mond reported in reply to Governor Hayne that 
it was in vain to make an appeal to the patriotism 

sidering the conflict of three decades later. When the editor of the 
Columbia Telescope heard that a New York militia corps had volun¬ 
teered to aid the President in sustaining the laws of the Union, he 
sent a challenge demanding that, in case nullification proved a 
bloodless affair, the officers at least of that corps should have an 
opportunity to fight; for a southern antagonist, he said, would be 
furnished for every one of their officers, from colonel to corporal 
( Niles’ Register, February 9, 1833). 


280 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

of more than one man in fifty for the purchase of 
arms. Such as they had, the people would use 
and use well, but they were too poor to buy. 
Whenever they were called into regular service, 
the state must expect to arm them, if they were 
to act efficiently. They might skirmish in the 
woods and harass invaders with their shotguns, 
but they could not stand a moment in the field 
before a regular force properly equipped. 1 

It was even rumored among the Unionists that 
the British consul in Charleston, who was said 
to be a Nullifier, had assured his friends that he 
had written to the commander of the British 
squadron in the West Indies requesting him to 
send some war vessels to Charleston harbor to 
protect the persons and property of English sub¬ 
jects. Whatever the pretext, said the Unionists, 
the appearance of such a force would encourage 
the Nullifiers, for their leaders had led them to 
believe that in a contest with the federal govern¬ 
ment they would receive the aid of Great Britain. 2 

Meanwhile the Union party was not inactive, 
for many believed that, if the tariff bill failed to 

'Hammond Papers: Hayne to Hammond, February 12, 1833; 
Hammond to Hayne, February 24. 

2 Jackson Papers: Poinsett to Jackson, February 9, 1833. 


Nullification Suspended 


281 


satisfy the Nullifiers, civil war in South Carolina 
was ahnost certain. Though many Nullifiers 
still believed that they could settle all differences 
peaceably by a simple declaration of secession, 
to William Drayton at Washington it seemed evi¬ 
dent that Congress would not permit South Caro¬ 
lina to withdraw from the Union, whatever might 
be the opinion of the Nullifiers as to the abstract 
right of a state to secede. 1 The Union men saw 
the necessity of organization, and held frequent 
meetings both in the districts where they were in 
a majority and in those where they were not; 
“Union Societies” began to be formed all over 
the state. 2 The resolutions adopted by these 
meetings disapproved of the entire plan of action 
taken by the Nullifiers in the convention and the 
legislature, praised the President for his policy, 
and pledged the members of the party to remain 
true to the Union and never to take up arms 
against the Stars and Stripes. The Union press 
considered that the elections for sheriff in several 
districts in January showed a gain for their party. 3 

Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, January 13, 1833. 

2 Mountaineer, January 5, 12, 19, February 9, 1833; Patriot, 
January 14; Journal, February 2; Messenger , January 30. 

3 Mountaineer, January 26, 1833; Journal, February 2. 


282 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The absorbing interest of everybody seemed to be 
the support of one or the other of the two parties; 
small boys in the streets and ministers in the 
pulpits wore cockades showing their affiliations. 1 

In several districts of the interior Union men 
predominated in the militia companies and pre¬ 
vented them from being counted among the re¬ 
sources of the Nullffiers. 2 The Union party, too, 
was making an attempt at military organization. 
Their work had of necessity to be more secret. 
Joel R. Poinsett seemed to be known to be the 
leader of the Union forces, and some Union com¬ 
panies were formed, but not so many as among the 
majority party. 3 Though some of the Union men 
were so apprehensive that they sent their valuables 
to the North lest the Nullffiers confiscate them, 
the Nullffiers were also disquieted because in some 
few districts the Union military organization took 
on a formidable character. 4 

1 Journal, February 2, 1833; Mountaineer, February 23. 

2 Mountaineer, February 16, 23, 1833. 

3 Poinsett Papers: Lee to Poinsett, January 21,1833; other letters 
in January and February. 

4 Niles’ Register, February 9, 1833; Messenger, February 2. • In 
a speech by Wilson, of Charleston, in the convention in March, 
referred to below, Horry, Chester, Greenville, Spartanburg, and 
Charleston were especially mentioned as districts where the Union 
organization was very strong. 


Nullification Suspended 


283 


The Union men had as a constant source of 
encouragement the assurance of help from the 
President when needed. Jackson, however, did 
not wish to interfere by giving the aid of federal 
troops, unless that course was positively neces¬ 
sary. He hoped to see the Union patriots of 
South Carolina themselves put down nullifica¬ 
tion, save the character of the state, and add 
thereby to the stability of the Union. He 
wished, nevertheless, to be kept constantly in¬ 
formed of the action of the Nullifiers; and he was 
prepared, the moment they should be in hostile 
array against the execution of the laws, forth¬ 
with to order the arrest and prosecution of the 
leaders; the first act of treason committed, 
when the first armed force should appear in the 
field to sustain the ordinance, would, he believed, 
call to its support all those who had aided and 
abetted in the excitement; he could then “strike 
at the head and demolish the monster, nullification 
and secession, at the threshold by the power of 
the law.” 

Then, if any forcible resistance were encoun¬ 
tered, he would at once call into the field such a 
force as would overawe it, “put treason and re¬ 
bellion down without blood,” and arrest and hand 


284 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

over to the judiciary for trial and punishment 
the “leaders, exciters, and promoters of this rebel¬ 
lion and treason.” On receiving official notice 
of the assemblage of a force in Charleston, armed 
to resist the laws, he would have in Charleston, 
in ten or fifteen days at the latest, from ten to 
fifteen thousand organized troops, well equipped 
for the field, and from twenty to thirty thousand 
more in the interior. He reported to the Union 
men that he had had a tender of volunteers “from 
every state in the Union,” and could, “if need be, 
which God forbid, march 200,000 men in forty 
days to quell any and every insurrection or rebel¬ 
lion that might arise to threaten our glorious con¬ 
federacy and Union, upon which our liberty, 
prosperity, and happiness rest.” He felt con¬ 
vinced that the whole nation, from Maine to 
Louisiana, including even Virginia, would unitedly 
stand behind him in the position he had taken. 1 

1 See Poinsett Papers: Drayton to Poinsett, December 31, 1832; 
Jackson to Poinsett, January 16, 24, February 7, 17, 1833. In 
short, Jackson was proving the truth of the picture which George 
McDuffie had drawn of him a few years previously, in the days before 
“the mist of nullification .... overspread his imagination”: “In 
a word, if I were called upon to define what it is that constitutes a 
talent for governing human affairs with wisdom, I would say that 
when our country is surrounded with difficulties, and a crisis is 
presented in her affairs, from which she should be speedily extricated, 


Nullification Suspended 


285 


Virginia would go with him, he believed, in re¬ 
sponse to the voice of her yeomanry, even though 
the legislature and governor opposed him. 

the man is best qualified to rule over her destinies— not, who can 
write, after months of deliberation, the most philosophical exposition 
of the causes of her embarrassment —not who can declaim most 
eloquently upon her distress — but who has the judgment to decide 
with promptitude what is the remedy that will save the republic, and 
energy enough to apply that remedy successfully whatever obstacles 
may be interposed by foreign force or domestic treason. Such is the 
man I should designate as qualified to fill the highest executive office 
of the republic. And such a man precisely is Andrew Jackson” 
(. Journal , March 2,1833). This Union editor now printed this former 
characterization of the President by one of his present bitter oppo¬ 
nents, and remarked that the author had spoken more truly and 
pertinently than he had known. 


CHAPTER IX 


THE COMPROMISE TARIFF AND THE FORCE 
BILL (1833) 

In the meantime Congress was again distraught 
by the tariff controversy. Verplanck’s tariff bill 
was discussed for some time. At one point of the 
discussion, on January 23, it was reported that a 
tariff bill would have passed the House had it not 
been for a “very insulting and irritating speech” 
by Richard H. Wilde, of Georgia, which greatly 
angered the Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio 
delegates; there was great excitement and appar¬ 
ently no hope then that the bill would pass during 
that session. It was believed, the President said, 
that this speech was made at the instigation of the 
Nullifiers, who wished no adjustment. The Presi¬ 
dent predicted that the whole country, including 
even the South, would be united against the Nulli¬ 
fiers when it was discovered that their object was 
“nothing but disunion.” 1 

1 Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, January 24, 1833; Van 
Buren Papers: Jackson to Van Buren, January 25. 

286 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 287 

The Verplanck bill, which embodied too rapid 
a reduction for the manufacturers, was finally 
superseded by the Clay Compromise bill; this 
measure was more acceptable to the North and 
yet conceded enough to pacify the Nullifiers. 
This provided for a slow reduction of the duties for 
a period of ten years, when they were to reach in 
general a 20 per cent level. The Wilkins force bill, 
before Congress at the same time, of course re¬ 
ceived more denunciation from the Nullifiers than 
the Clay bill received praise. Though they often 
declared that should Congress pass the bill, which 
might well be entitled “a bill to dissolve the 
Union,” South Carolina would surely secede, 
Congress did pass it, together with the com¬ 
promise tariff. 1 

As matters neared a crisis in Congress, the 
president of the South Carolina convention, ex- 
Governor James Hamilton, Jr., summoned it to 
convene again on March n at Columbia, to con¬ 
sider the Virginia mediation offered through 
Benjamin W. Leigh, and such measures as Con¬ 
gress might then have adopted. The call was 

1 Mercury, January 28, February 27, March 5, 1833; Journal, 
March 9; Patriot, January 28, February 20; Mountaineer, February 
16, March 2, 9; Courier, March 5. 


288 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

issued about the middle of February, before the 
passage of the congressional measures. The 
Union press then took occasion to point out what 
they considered the true status of this convention. 
The Courier remarked: 

We have called it an anomalous body because in its 
present shape and with its present pretensions it is wholly 
without example in the free and republican states of 
America. It has been called into existence without any 
definite purpose or object, is wholly irresponsible, and, 
elevating itself above the constitution and the laws, 
aspires to boundless and illimitable power. It is, in 
fact, in itself a despotism, or the machinery of a despotism, 
which, in the name of the people, exercises authority in¬ 
consistent with the rights and liberties of the people— 
a despotism rendered doubly peculiar and unjustifiable by 
the fact that it has reared itself in the midst of free insti¬ 
tutions and is upheld by those who profess to cherish 
liberty more dearly than life. It exhibits, in the emphatic 
language of Mr. Dallas, the extraordinary spectacle 
of a standing revolutionary convention untrammelled in 
a republican country. 1 

As the time approached when the convention 
would meet, it appeared that the tariff adjustment 
would be accepted, but that the “bloody” Wilkins 
bill would give further trouble, and that the test 


1 Courier, February 19, 1833. 


The Compromise Tarijf and the Force Bill 289 

oath would be a means of keeping up bitter party 
hostility in South Carolina. 1 

The convention met according to the call on 
March n, 2 and President James Hamilton, Jr., 
resigned in favor of Governor Robert Y. Hayne. 
A select committee of twenty-one was at once 
appointed to prepare the work of the convention. 
This committee presented on March 13 a report 
on the new tariff bill, together with an ordinance 
rescinding the ordinance of November 24, 1832; 
the report and ordinance were adopted March 15, 
virtually as at first reported, by a vote of 153 
to 4. Three days later another ordinance was 
adopted which nullified the force bill and made 
further provision for the test oath. 

As to the new tariff act, the convention declared 
that the reduction provided for by the bill was 
neither in its amount, nor in the time when it was 
to go into effect, such as the South had a right to 
require; yet such a step had been taken toward 
the true principles on which the duties on imports 
ought to be adjusted that the people of South 

1 Mercury, March 9, 1833. 

2 Perry Collection, Vol. IX; Journal of the South Carolina Con¬ 
vention, March, 1833, with reports of the committees, resolutions 
proposed, and digest of the debates and speeches by various members. 


290 Nunification Controversy in South Carolina 

Carolina were willing to repeal their ordinance. 
Among the provisions of the new bill which recom¬ 
mended it to their acceptance were the establish¬ 
ment of a system of ad valorem duties, the entire 
abandonment of specific duties and minima, and 
reductions to an ultimate 20 per cent level. These 
were ameliorations of the system to the benefits of 
which they could not be insensible. But great 
as must be the advantages of these reductions, 
they were small in comparison with the distinct 
recognition in the new bill of two great principles 
which were deemed of inestimable value: namely, 
that the duties should eventually be brought down 
to the revenue standard, even if it should be found 
necessary to reduce the duties on the protected 
articles below 20 per cent, and that no more money 
should be raised than was necessary for an 
economical administration of the government. 

The preamble to the ordinance which rescinded 
the ordinance of nullification had several features 
more moderate in tone than several of the mem¬ 
bers of the convention approved. * Some there 
were who opposed stating any reasons at all; some 
opposed as hypocrisy the statement that “ardently 
attached to the Union of the states” the people 
of South Carolina were still more devoted to the 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 291 

“rights of the states, without which the Union 
itself would cease to be a blessing be¬ 

cause South Carolina was by no means “ardently 
attached to the Union”; some called the tariff bill 
a great triumph: while others objected to any 
show of rejoicing over it because little had been 
gained, since the real trouble was that the govern¬ 
ment would continue to be of a despotic nature 
until limited to those interests common to the 
whole confederacy, and because until then there 
would be neither liberty nor security for the South; 
and while some wanted credit given to Virginia 
and no mention made of Clay’s bill in the reasons 
given for the state action, others wanted all credit 
given to the bill and no mention made of the 
mediation of Virginia. In many of the speeches 
there was much boasting of the efficacy of nulli¬ 
fication ; 1 yet the people were warned to keep up 
their zeal, courage, vigilance, and military prep¬ 
arations; it was urged that the state should be 
kept in a firm attitude of defense against the 
people of the North, for there was more need of 
such defense than against a foreign enemy. 

1 “With but our one-gun-battery of nullification we have driven 
the enemy from his moorings, compelled him to slip his cable and put 
to sea”—a prodigious work “for this little state,” said Robert J. 
Turnbull, of Charleston. 


292 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

In answer to the mediation of Virginia, a report 
was adopted which reviewed the whole situation 
and justified South Carolina’s adherence to the 
Virginia resolutions of 1798. Great care was 
taken not to offend Virginia, and a keen apprecia¬ 
tion of the Virginia motives in mediation was 
expressed. 

As to the force bill, the convention declared that 
the principles which the act sought to establish 
were calculated to “destroy our constitutional 
frame of government, to subvert the public 
liberty, and to bring about the utter ruin and de¬ 
basement of the southern states of this con¬ 
federacy.” The general purpose of the whole 
act, though not expressed in the terms of it, was 
perfectly well known to have been to counteract 
and render ineffective an ordinance of South 
Carolina adopted in her sovereign capacity for 
the protection of her reserved rights. Believ¬ 
ing in the constitutionality of these reserved 
rights of the state, the convention declared 
the force bill unconstitutional on nine distinct 
counts. 

The feature of the work of the convention which 
was destined to furnish occasion for discord during 
the next two years was its declaration: 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 293 

That the allegiance of the citizens of this state, while 
they continue such, is due to the said state; and that 
obedience only, and not allegiance, is due by them to any 
other power or authority, to whom a control over them 
has been or may be delegated by the state; and the general 
assembly of the said state is hereby empowered, from 
time to time, when they may deem it proper, to provide 
for the administration to the citizens and officers of the 
state, or such of the said officers as they may think fit, 
of suitable oaths or affirmations, binding them to the 
observance of such allegiance, and abjuring all other 
allegiance, and also to define what shall amount to a viola¬ 
tion of their allegiance, and to provide the proper punish¬ 
ment for such violation. 

This passed by a vote of 132 to 19. The few 
Union members of the convention spoke bravely 
against the test oath, but in vain; the other 
party was determined to pass this measure of 
discipline against them, and their protests only 
called forth severe denunciations of the whole 
policy of the Union party, which, it was said, had 
made thorough preparations to defeat the efforts 
of the state. 

The Union party had planned to have a party 
convention at Columbia at the same time that 
the state convention met. It was expected by 
Jackson that in case the state convention should 


294 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

determine on secession, the Union party would 
declare its determination to support the United 
States to the last extremity. 1 Thus while the 
Unionists had previously stood merely against 
nullification, declaring that if the state should 
secede they would go with her, they now gave 
grounds for an expectation that they would oppose 
the state if secession developed out of nullification. 
They would have fought with the state had she 
openly voted for secession in the preceding fall, 
but they would not support secession now if it 
was voted by the state convention elected to adopt 
nullification as a “peaceable” measure. Some 
of them said, in fact, that the state had not de¬ 
clared for secession officially, and that if it were 
adopted it would be the result of deception on the 
part of the nullification leaders. 

But because the time appointed for the meeting 
of the convention fell at a season when the “sub¬ 
stantial yeomanry” of the state, of whom the 
Union men claimed to have the majority, were 
starting their crops, and because the belief was 
general that nullification was “in its last agonies” 
by reason of the tariff adjustment, and because 
a party convention was not essential to the cause 

’Poinsett Papers: Jackson to Poinsett, March 6, 1833. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 295 

of the Union and therefore would not be well 
attended, the Union central committee, composed 
of Joel R. Poinsett, James L. Petigru, Daniel E. 
Huger, Richard I. Manning, and Robert Cunning¬ 
ham, postponed the Union convention indefinitely, 
to be called in case of “new acts of tyranny by 
the dominant party.” 1 The fact, however, that 
this Union convention had been contemplated 
for the purpose of opposing the Nullifiers in case 
they should determine in the state convention to 
push their remedy farther, had much to do with 
the bitter feeling evinced in the state convention 
against the Union party. 

The repeal of the ordinance of nullification 
virtually settled the question of South Carolina’s 
federal relations. There were some grumblings 
against the tariff during the rest of the year, but 
in general the main interest of politics centered 
in the local quarrel between the two parties 
over the test oath. This controversy appeared 
even before the convention met and was soon 
recognized as hinging upon a difference of in¬ 
terpretation as to where paramount allegiance 
was due. 

Poinsett Papers: Chapman Levy to Poinsett, February 25, 
1833. Patriot , March n, 1833. 


296 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Before the convention met, the Mercury recom¬ 
mended a provision for an oath of paramount 
allegiance to the state to be taken by all state 
officers and, as part of the condition of citizenship, 
by all persons thereafter to be naturalized. The 
Nullifiers maintained that such an oath was not 
at all different from the oaths of office required 
by several other states. For example, those of 
Vermont and Massachusetts, because they con¬ 
tained no reservation of paramount allegiance to 
the United States in so many words, were said 
to require the positive and direct allegiance of 
the officer, in the event of conflict with federal 
laws, to the laws of the state. This the Nullifiers 
would put in direct terms instead of leaving it to 
implication. 

The Union editors at once attacked this con¬ 
tention with arguments which they thought con¬ 
clusive. How anyone who had read the emphatic 
language of the federal Constitution on this very 
subject could seriously entertain such a proposi¬ 
tion, they said, was not easy to imagine. They 
quoted from the federal instrument: “This Con¬ 
stitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof 
shall be the supreme law of the land, anything 
in the constitution or laws of any state to the 


The Compromise Tarijf and the Force Bill 297 

contrary notwithstanding.” They argued that 
the oath and obligation of federal allegiance were 
necessarily paramount to the oath and obligation 
of state allegiance; that to make in the state 
constitution an express reservation of supremacy 
in favor of the supreme law of the land would be, 
to say the least, an act of supererogation. In fact, 
they declared that the obligation of state allegiance 
included that of federal allegiance, for both the 
federal and the state constitutions composed the 
fundamental law within the limits of every state, * 
and the former was in express terms vested with 
supremacy over the latter in case of a conflict 
between them. 

No one denied the right of a state to require of 
its citizens an oath of fidelity, and there was not 
a Union man in South Carolina who would not 
readily swear or affirm, after the form of the 
Massachusetts oath, “I, A. B., do solemnly swear, 
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
commonwealth of South Carolina, and will sup¬ 
port the constitution thereof, so help me God.” 

If this state, even after the passage of her ordi¬ 
nance of nullification, had required such an oath 
from her citizens, the Union editors saw no reason 
why it should not have been cheerfully taken by 


2q 8 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

all. But the Nullifiers’ test oath did not conform 
to this model. It did not merely require the citi¬ 
zen generally to pledge his fealty to the state; it 
commanded him, under pain of proscription and 
disfranchisement, to swear that he would enforce 
a particular measure or set of measures; that he 
would obey and execute the nullification edict 
and the laws passed in pursuance of it, although 
convinced that they were in direct collision with 
the federal Constitution, which he was already 
bound to obey as the supreme law of the land. 
The object of this device, as openly avowed by its 
advocates, was to constitute the ordinance of 
nullification, instead of the federal Constitution, 
the paramount law of the land. The Union men 
especially objected to the clause requiring jurors 
to take the test oath. 1 

The Union men protested also that such an 
oath of paramount allegiance to the state would 
set aside, not only the ordinary obligation to obey 
the laws of the United States, but that part of 
the state constitution itself known as the “declara¬ 
tion of supremacy” of the federal Constitution 
and the oath connected with it. An oath of 
paramount allegiance to the state would be an 

1 Courier, March 6, 1833; Patriot, March 9, n. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 299 

abnegation of all other allegiance from the mo¬ 
ment it was taken. It would be a contradiction 
to subscribe at the same time to an oath of 
paramount allegiance to the state and an oath 
of paramount allegiance to the United States. 

It was toward the end of the session of the con¬ 
vention that the oath question came up. The 
debate became bitter and so personal that on a 
Saturday evening it was suggested that adjourn¬ 
ment be taken over Sunday, “ to hear prayers and 
cool off.” 1 On the following Monday, since the 
Nullifiers were not able to agree among themselves, 
the convention agreed as a compromise to refer 
the entire question of oaths to the legislature. 
This satisfied neither the radical Nullifiers, who 
wanted the convention to prescribe the oath at 
once, nor the Union men, who wanted the whole 
matter dropped now and forever. This grant of 
power by the convention to the legislature to 
settle the matter was decried by the Union men 
as a provision to disfranchise, keep out of office, 
and “chain to the chariot wheels of a crowd of 
despots who ruled the madness of the hour” 
nearly half the citizens of the state. It was held 
to be “an odious and tyrannical usurpation,” 

1 Benjamin F. Perry, Reminiscences and Speeches. 


300 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

for the purpose of securing all the offices of the 
state to the State Rights party, for the Unionists 
knew that no Union man could be found who 
would “soil his conscience and sell his country 
for the paltry consideration held forth by the 
emoluments of office” when “offered as the 
wages of iniquity—as the reward of moral 
perjury!” 

Surely this plan could not be executed, for it 
would arouse the dormant spirit of the people 
and open their eyes to the approach of despotism, 
reasoned the Union men. 1 But since the personnel 
of the legislature would be the same at its next 
session as at the last, that body would be likely 
to take such action as the nullification leaders 
desired, unless a formidable popular sentiment 
against the oath could be worked up by the Union 
party. Accordingly, from March until the legis¬ 
lature met, the last week in November, the papers 
were filled with arguments pro and con on the 
advisability of adopting an oath. 

Though the oath question was still in agitation, 
the editors of the state welcomed the comparative 
calm of the next few months. For the past four 
years, and especially during the last two, the 

1 Gazette, March 19, 1833. 


The Compromise Tarijf and the Force Bill 301 

papers had been filled with little else than the all- 
absorbing political issue. Day after day, and 
week after week, the reader found the columns of 
the papers filled with long reports of speeches, 
debates, and arguments on political questions. 
Although in these months some great contribu¬ 
tions to the literature of political science were 
made, it is not to be wondered at that the readers 
of these papers became somewhat wearied with 
so much heavy material, and craved something 
in a lighter vein. At any rate, the editors felt 
called upon to apologize for having given so much 
space to political matter, and they assured their 
readers that in the future they would devote their 
columns more to the general news of the day — 
market prices, miscellaneous productions of his¬ 
tory, biography, poetry, tales, anecdotes, and 
agricultural essays in an effort to stay the process 
of exhaustion of the soil which was going on. One 
editor added that murders and accidents would 
have their due proportion of attention. 1 

For a few months following the passage of the 
compromise tariff there continued some discus¬ 
sion as to the merits of the bill. Some of the 
nullification papers claimed a great victory for 

1 Mountaineer, April 6, 1833; Messenger, May 15. 


302 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

nullification, 1 and nearly all of them were eager 
to prove that the new tariff was really a victory 
for the South. They reviewed recent tariff his¬ 
tory for the purpose of proving that such a con¬ 
cession as the new bill embodied was much greater 
than could have been expected shortly before, 
when Congress had ridiculed a proposal by Hayne 
that no duty on any article should exceed ioo per 
cent. Now they had a law demanding the 
gradual reduction of the duty on every article to 
20 per cent; ad valorem duties were to become 
general, and the abominable minimum system 
was to be abandoned; a number of articles re¬ 
ceived almost exclusively in return for the pro¬ 
ductions of the South were in a few months to be 
admitted duty-free. These same papers pointed 
out that the bill, though objectionable in some of 
its provisions, was decidedly more advantageous 

1 Messenger, March 20, 1833. An excellent example is quoted 
by Niles’ Register, March 23, 1833, from the Columbia Telescope of 
March 12: “This little state .... has foiled the swaggering giant 
of the Union. 30,000 Carolinians have not only awed the Wild 
West into respect, compelled Pennsylvania stolidity into something 
like sense, New York corruption into something like decency, Yankee 
rapacity into a sort of image of honesty, but all this has been loftily 
and steadily done in the face of 17,000—what shall we call them? 
What epithet is of a shame wide, lasting, and deep enough for the 
betrayers of the liberties of their own country .... ?” The 
closing remark was directed at the Union men. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 303 

to the South than any that had been offered for 
years, and that its passage before the act of 1832 
had gone into operation proved beyond doubt that 
it was brought about by some unusual cause. 
That cause, they declared, was nullification. 1 
The tariff and administration press of the North, 
and the Union and administration or “collar’’ 
press of the South, however, attacked the bill in 
vigorous terms; some of the Union men even 
protested that it was worse than the bill of 1832, 
and announced that they would proceed to get a 
better one some day in their own way. 2 

Jackson took a view of the entire affair radically 
different from that of the South Carolina Nulli- 
fiers. On March 21, 1833, he wrote as follows: 

Nullification, supported by the corrupting influence 
of the Bank, with the union of Calhoun and Clay, which 
collected around them the corrupt and wicked of all 
parties, engaged all my attention to counteract their 
combinations, and defeat their wicked projects. I met 
nullification at its threshold. My proclamation was well 
timed; it opened the eyes of the people to the wicked 
designs of the Nullifiers, whose actings (?) had been carried 
on in silence, whilst its ostensible object, which deluded 

1 Messenger, March 20, 27, June 26, 1833. Hammond Papers: 
Hammond to M. C. M. Hammond, March 27. 

2 Journal, July 20, 1833; Messenger, April 17, May 8. 


304 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

the people, was a peaceable and constitutional modifica¬ 
tion of the tariff. The tariff was made the ostensible 
object, when a separation of the union by the Potomac, and 
a southern confederacy, was the true one. The proclama¬ 
tion drew the attention of the people to the subject, and 
from Maine to Louisiana, the united voice of the people 
repudiated the absurd and wicked doctrine of nullification 
and secession, and the advices of today inform us that 
South Carolina has repealed her ordinance and all the 
laws based upon it. Thus dies nullification and the 
doctrine of secession, never more to be heard of, only in 
holding up to scorn and indignation its projectors and 
abettors, and handing them down to posterity as traitors 
to the best of governments . 1 

The Wilkins bill received far more attention 
than did the tariff law. The nullification leaders 
pointed out that the question had assumed a 
different form; that the issue now was between 
a consolidated government, exercising the powers 
claimed under the bloody bill, trampling down 
the authorities and rights of the states, and a 
confederacy of sovereignties. They predicted 
that the new issue would unite the South, and that 
the South united would triumph or be forced to 
submit to an irresponsible despotism. 2 John C. 
Calhoun believed that a consolidated government 

1 Jackson Papers: Jackson to ?, March 21, 1833. 

2 Messenger, March 20, 1833. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 305 

had indeed been established by law under the 
force act, and that unless there should be a com¬ 
plete reaction which would repeal that act and 
completely reform the government, the South 
must expect and prepare to sink under corruption 
and despotism. His hope of avoiding this catas¬ 
trophe was placed in the agency of state rights 
to be used by the southern states as South Caro¬ 
lina had employed them against the tariff. 1 To 
the State Rights party it seemed that the force 
act was destined to be the dividing line between 
the Republicans and the Federalists, as were the 
Alien and Sedition laws in former days. The 
present federalism, they believed, had assumed a 
bolder tone than that of an earlier time, for it had 
come out in open advocacy of a government with¬ 
out limitation of powers and even dared to place 
the purse and the sword of the nation in the hands 
of a single individual, to be used at his discretion. 2 

Some of the President’s closest political sym¬ 
pathizers believed that he had been too hasty in 
his message asking for the force bill; that his 
message and the bill should not have appeared 

1 Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to Christopher Van Deven¬ 
ter, March 24, 1833; Calhoun to Thomas Holland and Committee, 
July 2. 

2 Messenger, April 3, 10, May 1, 1833. 


306 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

until the close of the session and it was certain 
that South Carolina had put her ordinance into 
execution. As it was, the administration was 
embarrassed by having its leading measure sup¬ 
ported by its bitterest enemies—ultra-federalists 
and ultra-tariffites—who would be pleased to see 
the North and the South arrayed against each 
other. If South Carolina yielded to the Virginia 
intercession, there was no need for the enforcing 
act, and if she should not yield, it could have come 
forward under most favorable circumstances. 1 

After the convention had ended the nullifica¬ 
tion episode as far as the tariff was concerned, the 
Nullifiers still continued their military organiza¬ 
tion. On March 26 general orders were issued 
from the headquarters of the commander-in-chief 
at Charleston, 2 declaring that in view of the force 
bill, though the convention had repealed the 
ordinance of nullification and the acts of the legis¬ 
lature passed in pursuance thereof, it had expressly 
excepted the act “further to alter and amend the 

1 Van Buren Papers: Cambreleng to Van Buren, February 5, 
1833; T. H. Benton to Van Buren, February 16; Van Buren to 
Jackson, February 20. 

2 Hammond Papers: General orders, signed by J. B. Earle, 
adjutant- and inspector-general. This copy was sent to J. H. 
Hammond and is dated March 26, 1833. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 307 

militia laws of the state,” under which the nearly 
20,000 volunteers had been organized and their 
services accepted. The volunteers would, there¬ 
fore, retain their existing organization at least 
until the next session of the legislature. The 
old militia organization was also to continue as 
before. 

It was believed by some of the State Rights 
men that although the action of the convention 
which declared the allegiance of every Carolinian 
due to the state and obedience merely as the due 
of the constitutional laws of the general govern¬ 
ment would probably not give rise to any disturb¬ 
ance, yet Jackson was “such a hot headed old fool 
and scoundrel” that there was no telling what he 
might do. “At all events,” said one of the leaders, 
“we continue our military preparations and shall 
keep them up until the force bill is repealed and 
probably always. It has come to this in our 
opinion, that we of the South are to have no more 
freedom than we can maintain at the point of the 
sword and we are determined to be always pre¬ 
pared for that issue whenever it is necessary to 
make it.” 1 

1 Hammond Papers: Hammond to M. C. M. Hammond, March 
27, 1833. 


308 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

No means was neglected which might be used 
to keep up the interest of the State Rights men in 
their military organization. For this purpose, and 
to offset the influence of a dinner given by the 
Union men for the officers of the federal govern¬ 
ment sent to Charleston to be ready for action, 
the Nullifiers gave a “Grand Volunteer Ball” on 
March 27. The decorations were very elaborate; 
the palmetto flag was everywhere to be seen; 
transparencies told in terse mottoes the virtues 
of nullification; the names of the party heroes 
were in prominence; but nowhere did the Stars 
and Stripes appear, because it was identified with 
the bill of blood. 1 

Five days later, on April 1, another military 
celebration was held in Charleston. This was of 
a different character and became the model for 
a type of festivity which was encouraged the state 
over in an effort to keep the volunteers organized. 
The governor reviewed the local troops and pre¬ 
sented them with a standard of the “nation of 
South Carolina,” as the opponents derisively 
called it. The troops were told again of the 
wonders they had wrought, and were urged to 
maintain their organization, that they might be 

1 Mercury, March 27, 1833; Niles' Register, April 13, 20. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 309 

ready for future deeds as great. Thereafter the 
governor reviewed and presented with a standard 
“in behalf of the state” every volunteer regiment 
which would of its own accord turn out to receive 
the honor. In some districts the plan to keep up 
interest worked well, and much enthusiasm was 
displayed, but in others the troops lost spirit and 
disbanded in spite of efforts to keep them together. 1 

The Nullifiers also exploited other occasions 
which afforded opportunity for a display of party 
spirit. Robert J. Turnbull, known as “Brutus,” 
one of the most active leaders of the party, died in 
the summer. The nullification papers took occa¬ 
sion in praising his work to boast of their doctrines; 
immediately a fund was started for a monument, 
and later in the year the cornerstone was laid with 
much ceremony. John C. Calhoun and Robert 
Y. Hayne both spoke earnestly for the cause. 2 

1 Niles’ Register, April 20, 27, September 7, October 26, 1833; 
Mercury, May 4. Hammond Papers: Hayne to Hammond, April 4, 
and letters of April, May, and June of 1833. As an indication of the 
way in which some of the men of the interior had ceased active work 
in behalf of the State Rights cause, a letter by Hammond to I. W. 
Hayne, dated December 17, 1833, is eloquent. He said, in part: 
“I have purchased two fiddles .... and divide my leisure time 
between fiddling and reading Grecian History.” A year previously 
he had no leisure time, nor time even for his plantation; he was 
devoting it all to the military organization of the party. 

2 Mercury, June 15, November 19, 25, 1833. 


310 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Fourth of July furnished the Nullifiers 
another opportunity to parade every uniform. 
Their toasts were steeped in the nullification 
doctrines, and many were very ungenerous toward 
their enemies, Jackson and the Union party. 1 

1 Mercury, July 6, 1833; Messenger, July 10, 24; Niles’ Register, 
August 31. The following are examples of the more ungenerous 
toasts: 

“Nullification: a shield against which the poisoned darts of 
aspiring demagogues and the puny efforts of disappointed ambition 
have struck in vain. It has preserved the Union from dissolution, 
the Constitution from infraction, and our government from con¬ 
solidation.” 

“Andrew Jackson: a political lunatic, exempt from responsibility 
for his acts, and dependent for their propriety or folly entirely upon 
the sanity of his keepers.” 

“Drayton, Blair, Mitchell, and all other southern advocates of 
the tariff and bloody bill: may they ever lie hard, have bad dreams, 
and die of lingering diseases and leave few friends to weep for them 
when dead.” 

One editor, in looking over the toasts given by the “plain farmers 
and working men” of the state, was astonished at the knowledge of 
the character of our institutions and of the political history of the 
times displayed by those whose opportunities of education were 
known to have been extremely limited. Though couched in 
some instances in homely language, they nevertheless showed that 
all had been awakened during the recent struggle to an investiga¬ 
tion of the affairs of the nation and of the principles on which 
the government was founded. The editor averred that if no 
other good had grown out of the contest, this general diffusion 
of intelligence, which he believed had placed South Carolina 
people as a mass ahead of any others in the United States for 
political knowledge, should be set down as great gain ( Messenger, 
July 10). 


The Compromise Tarif and the Force Bill 311 

In their efforts to keep the Nullifiers organized 
and zealous, Robert Y. Hayne, George McDuffie, 
William Harper, and other leaders had used such 
expressions as these: “We must regard ourselves 
as at the beginning, not the end, of a contest. In 
less than another year we may be called to arms. 
Such is the present aspect of things that we cannot 
safely intermit our military preparations”; “The 
battle is but begun”; “If, then, I am disposed to 
accept this compromise, it is with a distinct annun¬ 
ciation to our people that their zeal, their courage, 
their vigilance must not be abated; nor must 
they, for a single instant, intermit their military 
preparations!” 1 The Union editors pointed out 
that such statements meant either that the 
leading Nullifiers were to keep up the excite¬ 
ment and “the fudge and flummery” of military 
display for petty party reasons and to keep 
themselves prominent, or that they contem¬ 
plated secession at a later date. The entire pro¬ 
gram of the Nullification party seemed to the 
Union men to be one displaying the most insolent 
tyranny—“outrageous, bare-faced, premeditated 
and insupportable tyranny” of a “gang of 

1 Mountaineer, April 20, August 24, 1833; Journal, March 23, 
June 8; Gazette, April 1. 


312 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

desperadoes.” It was a “relapse into down right 
barbarism.” 1 

Union speakers defended the force bill and be¬ 
littled the compromise tariff. 2 The party papers 
noticed every apparent lagging of spirit among the 
ranks of the opposition. 3 Calhoun’s first speech 
on the force bill was picked to pieces by an editor 
who, after only a partial examination, pointed out 
twelve errors as to history and matters of fact. 4 
The debates of Calhoun and Webster, in the Senate 
in February of 1833, on the nature of the govern¬ 
ment were printed; Webster was held to have 
given the correct view, while that of Calhoun was 
ridiculed as being full of “strange fallacies,” 
“meretricious charms of error,” “delusions of 
sophistry,” and in many places almost “childishly 
fallacious and contradictory.” 5 The anomalous 
position of the late state convention was much 
ridiculed and the question was ironically asked 
whether the state was still “on her sovereignty.” 6 

1 Writings of Hugh S. Legate: letter by Legare to I. E. Holmes, 
April 8, 1833, p. 207. 

2 Journal, March 16, 1833; Patriot, July 5, 29. 

3 Messenger, June 5, 1833; Mountaineer, August 10. 

4 Courier, May 28, 1833. 

5 Patriot, April 4, 1833; Courier, April 5. 

6 Courier, April 19, July 19, 1833; Mountaineer, April 20. 


The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill 313 

The protean character of nullification was shown, 
and the misuse by the State Rights party of the 
phrase “sovereignty is indivisible” was pointed 
out. 1 

When the Edgefield Carolinian , a Columbia 
paper, and the Mercury all claimed that the ad¬ 
vance in cotton, noticed in August, was attrib¬ 
utable to nullification, the Patriot replied that 
such a statement might be expected from “an 
ignorant up-country editor,” 2 unacquainted with 
the matters of trade, but was inexcusable in 
the Mercury. “Nullification,” it was remarked, 
“must indeed have performed wonders, if it has 
given increased activity to the cotton mills of 
Europe and interfered with certain physical laws 
of our globe so as to have checked the growth of 
cotton.” The Nullifiers were asked what they 
would have said had the high price of cotton in 
1825 been attributed to the passage of the tariff 

1 Courier, November 23, June 15, 1833. Indivisible sovereignty, 
the Union men argued, applied only to the prince and not to the 
people. South Carolina, they said, had actually divided hers 
(the delegation of it had been divided, was probably what was 
meant), yielding a portion of it to the “great community of the 
Union.” 

2 These editors were by no means all ignorant. The editorial 
columns of some of the up-country papers were far more able than 
those of some of the Charleston papers. 


314 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

law of 1824. One statement was just as absurd 
as the other, to the Union men. 1 

When it came time for the Charleston city elec¬ 
tions in September, the Union men refused to 
nominate a ticket, because, they said, they wished 
no longer to continue the excitement and antago¬ 
nism. Just before the election, however, an 
independent ticket appeared, which made a fair 
showing, but was not able to defeat any part of 
the State Rights ticket. The State Rights men 
accused the Union men of thus trying, under a 
disguise, to get into control. The Union party, 
as such, denied the charge, and said that what few 
Union men voted the Independent ticket, which 
was promoted by seceders from the Nullification 
party, did so as individuals and without party 
concert. 2 

During this year there came a congressional 
election, delayed from the year before. In the 
last Congress the Union men had had three of the 
nine members of the House of Representatives. 
As a result of the election in September of 1833 
they had only one, James Blair. In a few dis- 

1 Patriot, August 21, 1833; Niles’ Register, September 7. 

2 Mercury, August 23, 30, September 4, 1833; Courier, Septem¬ 
ber 4. 


The Compromise Tarif and the Force Bill 315 

tricts, however, the Union party made a better 
showing than ever before. In Charleston the 
party decided not to run a candidate, knowing that 
it would be defeated and thinking that the people 
had been long enough harassed by political strife. 
In December the Nullifiers of Charleston easily 
elected a man to take the place in the state legisla¬ 
ture left vacant by the election of Henry L. 
Pinckney to Congress. 1 

1 Mercury, May 10, September 5, 13, December 6, 12, 1833; 
Mountaineer, August 31, September 7; Messenger, September 4, 18. 


CHAPTER X 


THE TEST OATH (1833-35) 

As the time approached for the legislative 
session the papers began to discuss the oath ques¬ 
tion more fully. The nullification papers declared 
that the oath would be passed by the legislature. 
The Union papers were filled with warnings 
against such action. They pleaded with their 
opponents to be satisfied with the victory they 
claimed to have won and to give the people a 
respite from the most angry and distracting party 
contest ever witnessed in the state. The Nulli- 
fiers were warned that the Union men would no 
longer tamely submit to the tyranny of being 
excluded from office because they would not swear 
to the truth of nullification. The Union men 
continually endeavored to make it clear that they 
did not object to a mere oath of allegiance to the 
state, but only to an oath of allegiance clothed 
in language which amounted to a denial of their 
federal obligations. Such an act, they asserted, 
would rekindle the flames of party discord and 
again involve the state in complete disorder, for 

3 16 


The Test Oath 


317 


those districts in which the Union party was still in 
the ascendancy would “choose political disorgan¬ 
ization sooner than yield to such an arbitrary 
measure.” 1 

There were some in the State Rights party 
who, up to a very late date, doubted the wisdom 
of the passage of an oath unless some emergency 
made it necessary to the safety of the state. 
They would not advocate it positively, but would 
let the legislature decide on its expediency. Some 
of this class were converted just before the legis¬ 
lature met, probably by the tone of the presses, 
into active advocates of an oath. 2 

The oath was the only important question 
before the legislature. The Nullifiers finally 
passed a law abolishing all the military commis¬ 
sions in the state militia and requiring all who 
should thereafter be elected to take the following 
oath of allegiance to the state in addition to the 
oath of office required by the state constitution: 
“I, A.B., do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will 
be faithful and true allegiance bear to the state 
of South Carolina; and that I will support and 

1 Messenger, November 14, 26, 1833; Mountaineer, November 
23; Courier, November 23. 

2 Mercury, November 26, 28, 1833; Journal, January 25, 1834. 


318 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

maintain, to the utmost of my ability, the laws 
and constitution of this state and the United 
States; so help me God.” Of course the Union 
men opposed it bitterly, but in vain. Some few 
of the Nullifiers still opposed it; of the Charleston 
delegation only one fought against it. There 
could be no doubt left as to the interpretation of 
the oath intended by the Nullifiers, for they voted 
down in the Senate an amendment which pro¬ 
vided “that nothing herein contained shall be 
construed so as to impair or in any manner affect 
the allegiance now due by the constitution of this 
state and of the United States.” 1 

The State Rights men contemplated a further 
exclusion of Union men, for they passed for the 
first time a bill to amend the state constitution 
so as to add a similar oath to be required of all 
officers in the state. The oath was to be extended 
from the military to the civil list. As an amend¬ 
ment to the constitution required the approval of 
two successive legislatures, the question would 
not be finally settled until the next year, when 
a new legislature would convene. The oath for 
all officers, which was proposed to be incorporated 
in the constitution by amendment, and on which 

1 Journal, December 21, 1833; Courier , December 10. 


The Test Oath 


3 I 9 


the people were to decide finally at the next fall 
elections, was: 

I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will be faithful 
and true allegiance bear to the state of South Carolina 
so long as I may continue a citizen thereof; and that I 
am duly qualified, according to the constitution of this 
state, to exercise the office to which I have been appointed; 
and that I will, to the best of my abilities, discharge 
the duties thereof and preserve, protect and defend the 
constitution of this state and of the United States; so 
help me God . 1 

Thirteen of the senators, belonging to the 
Union party, drew up and published, on Decem¬ 
ber 16, a protest against the oath as unnecessary 
if it were not to be interpreted as interfering 
with the oath to the federal Constitution, and as 
unwarrantable if it were to be so interpreted. 
A plot of a preliminary vote in the House on the 
oath question shows that the ranks of the Nulli- 
fiers were broken somewhat by the loss of some 
who refused to continue further the persecution 
of the Union men. But those who at first hesi¬ 
tated were later persuaded to vote for the oath. 2 

1 Mercury, April 30, 1834. 

2 The preliminary vote in the House was 60 to 44, but the mili¬ 
tary act and the oath amendment were passed by 89 to 23 in the 
House, and 31 to 13 in the Senate ( Courier, December 17, 1833; 
Messenger, July 30, 1834). See Map IX and p. 107, n. 3. 


320 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


Although the oath as adopted by the legislature 
did not in so many words demand paramount 
allegiance to the state, the Union men believed 
that all circumstances pointed to that interpre¬ 
tation. y To them the oath in the military bill 



Map IX.—House vote on the test oath, 1833 


was pregnant with a meaning beyond its literal 
signification; when viewed in connection with the 
ordinance of the late convention, from which they 
believed it might be said to have emanated, it 
became to all intents and purposes an oath of 





































The Test Oath 


3 21 


paramount allegiance to the state, which no one 
who believed in the supremacy of the federal 
Constitution could take with a blameless con¬ 
science, because the ordinance had defined alle¬ 
giance as something distinct from and superior 
to the obligation to support the constitution and 
laws of the state and the Union, and declared it 
to belong exclusively to the state. When to this 
was added the fact that the party which passed 
the oath of allegiance in the legislature was the 
same that defined allegiance in the convention; 
that nearly every speaker in the legislature in favor 
of the oath supported it as an oath of paramount 
allegiance; and that the amendment of Daniel E. 
Huger in the Senate, proposing that the oath 
should not be so construed as to impair the 
allegiance hitherto due to the Union, was defeated; 
its motive and its construction became too obvious 
to permit a Union man to take it without being 
recreant to his principles. The Union party 
would be ever ready to swear all allegiance and 
yield all obedience to the state consistent with the 
federal Constitution, but no lure of office, no fear 
of martyrdom would induce its adherents to 
assume an obligation of even doubtful import, 
exacted by the dominant party as a political test 


322 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

which might bring suspicion upon their motives 
and principles. 

It was pointed out by the Union men that there 
were some few members of the legislature of the 
ruling party who still insisted that the oath was 
expressly put in its present form to leave open the 
question of exclusive allegiance, and that it was 
not intended to proscribe the Union men for 
adherence to their former faith. These gentle¬ 
men were urged to speak through the press, 
for if they could .get the majority of their 
party to admit that the oath was not intended 
to exact paramount allegiance to the state, 
they would prove it to be harmless, remove 
all ground for excitement, and perhaps dissi¬ 
pate the portentous cloud of civil war. But 
no such interpretation came from the dominant 
party. 1 

The Union papers called attention to some of 
what they regarded as “mean details of the 
nefarious military bill.” The first section of this 
act revoked the commissions of the major- and 
brigadier-generals and gave the legislature power 
to appoint those officers ad interim. This the 

1 Courier, January 23, 1834. This was the key to the com¬ 
promise as finally effected in December of 1834. 


The Test Oath 


323 


legislature did at once, and thus the dominant 
party dispossessed the only two Union generals 
in the state, James Blair and James Rogers. The 
election recurred again to the people, but, it was 
asked, was not this one move toward robbing the 
people of their elective franchise ? 

Section six provided that on April 10 the com¬ 
mission of every militia officer of the state should 
be vacated. On April 11 an election would take 
place throughout the state for the purpose of 
choosing officers to fill the places of those who had 
been turned out. In some districts Union men 
would be elected; if they should refuse to accept 
the office and take the oath prescribed, the colonel 
would appoint men to fill the vacancies thus 
occasioned; and if the person appointed refused 
to accept the office, he was to be tried by a court 
martial, from which there was no appeal, and 
was to be fined j>2o. 

Another section of this “warlike act” provided 
that the buttons worn upon the uniforms of all 
officers should bear the “Palmetto Emblem.” 
At a time of less excitement the palmetto button 
would not have been objected to; but at this time, 
since this emblem had been adopted as the insig¬ 
nia of a party whose sole object seemed to be the 


324 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

dismemberment of the republic, the Unionists of 
the mountain districts announced that they would 
“never suffer it to disgrace their persons” until 
they had been “driven across ‘the last ditch.’ ” 
Scarcely a Union man mentioned this act without 
pronouncing it uncalled for and tyrannical in the 
highest degree. 1 

Some few there were among the Union party 
who were willing to take the oath, regarding it as 
perfectly harmless, because they believed it could 
be construed as each individual liked. These 
were assured by the great majority of the party, 
however, that the judges who were very likely to 
be Nullifiers would not so interpret it, but would 
demand, as the Nullification party urged in the 
legislature, exclusive allegiance to f he state and 
a paramount obligation to defend and uphold the 
sovereignty of South Carolina whenever it might 
come into conflict with the sovereignty of the 
United States. 2 

Union writers told their party that its sup¬ 
porters must submit in quiet humility, migrate, 
or resist. If the first course were followed, they 

1 Mountaineer, January 4, 1834. 

2 Patriot, January 15, 1834; Courier, January 15; Journal, Jan¬ 
uary 25. 


The Test Oath 


3 2 5 


would suffer martyrdom, it was true, but it would 
be that kind of martyrdom which a censorious 
world termed base submission. They would be 
marshaled in the ranks where they were held 
unworthy to share the command; they would be 
marched to and fro, be exhibited, sneered at, and 
despised by every upstart whose “only patent for 
sense or capacity” was “his diploma from the 
Jacobin Club.” Would “the brave mountain¬ 
eers of Carolina submit to it ? They must change 
their nature first.” If they migrated, then “they 
must take up their household gods and with all 
the world before them where to choose, and 
Providence their guide, seek in other climes a 
resting place where a free man could deign to live. 
Aye, they must leave the scenes of their childhood 
and the graves of their fathers and wander abroad 
from the inhospitable boundaries of a once gen¬ 
erous and high minded state, like the exiled Poles, 
‘a caravan of woe.’ ” The last course, resistance, 
would “plunge the steel into the bosoms of sons, 
fathers, and brothers.” 1 

Some of the Union men argued that the con¬ 
vention had no right to authorize the legislature 
to enact new oaths to supersede or modify those 

1 Courier, January 18, 1834. 


326 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

contained in the constitution. The convention 
itself, they said, could not have amended the con¬ 
stitution unless it had been elected by the people 
for this particular purpose. At all events, they 
declared, it must be admitted that they could not 
delegate their power of amendment; yet when 
they authorized the legislature to impose the new 
oaths they undertook to delegate authority to 
alter the constitution, where an oath of fidelity 
to the state was already imposed; it therefore 
followed that the legislature could not pass a law 
imposing a new oath on the military officers of the 
state, pretending to derive their right to do this 
from the convention. The Nullifiers in answer 
attacked the Union party for now objecting that 
the convention went beyond its true power, when 
in objecting to the call of the convention the 
Unionists had asserted that the convention would 
be all-powerful. The Union presses then answered 
that it had been argued that a convention might 
act as if it were omnipotent, but not that it would 
have the right so to act, and that the event had 
justified the fears of its opponents. 1 

In the upper part of the state, in the moun¬ 
tainous districts and in Greenville especially, the 

1 Patriot , February 19, April 5, 1834. 


The Test Oath 


3 2 7 


Union men showed signs of forcible resistance. 
When the ordinance of 1832 was passed, “the 
freemen of the mountain districts” were much 
exasperated, but the excitement then was said 
to be not nearly so intense or universal as now. 
Immediately after the legislature adjourned, 
meetings were held in rapid succession, each one 
seeming more determined in tone than the pre¬ 
ceding. On January 4 the resolutions of a local 
Greenville meeting exhorted the officers to hold 
their commissions in defiance of the act, and the 
people swore not only to obey no officer who took 
the oath, but to stand by their “own true officers 
to death.” In Darlington, Spartanburg, York, 
Anderson, Pickens, Laurens, Abbeville, Chester, 
Horry, Williamsburg, and other places in the 
interior, local and general district meetings were 
held to denounce the oath and pledge various 
degrees of resistance to it. The Mercury tried to 
make light of this “silly effort to get up an excite¬ 
ment,” but it soon proved to be more than a “silly 
effort”; it was an outburst of public indignation 
which deserved and demanded consideration. 1 

1 Mountaineer, January n, 18, 25, February 1, 15, 22, March r, 
1834; Patriot, January 17, 23, February 6, 21, March 1, n; Jour¬ 
nal, January 18, February r, March 8. 


328 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

On sale day, on February 3, a district meeting 
was held in Greenville, according to previous 
announcement. It was pronounced the largest 
assemblage of Union men ever convened in the 
district. Resolutions were adopted which did not 
contain as strong language as several of those 
from the local meetings, and a respectable minor¬ 
ity of the committee of twenty-four who drew 
them up objected to them on that account. The 
resolutions declared that the Unionists would 
first use those means which were legal to get a 
repeal of the military act and an abandonment 
of the proposed amendment to the constitution. 
They would not in any way aid or assist in carry¬ 
ing into effect the act, and should an attempt be 
made to levy fines upon them for their refusal 
so to act, they would look for protection to the 
“virtue, intelligence, independence, and patriot¬ 
ism” of their fellow-citizens. In order to defeat 
the operations of the military act they would run 
Union candidates for all militia offices to be filled 
on April n, and they would neither obey any 
orders nor do militia duty under officers who might 
be appointed over them. In March the people 
of the lower country were up and doing. Although 
they did not move as soon as the people of the 


The Test Oath 


3 2 9 


mountains, they appeared to make up for lost 
time by their spirit and zeal in opposition to the 
work of the legislature. 1 

In February there was agitation for another 
meeting of the Union convention to decide on a 
course of action for the party at large before 
April 11. The result was a call for the convention 
to meet in Greenville on the fourth Monday in 
March, and the districts at once began to appoint 
delegates. 2 On March 24 the convention met 
with no delegates. A committee of twenty, 
composed of a delegate from each district repre¬ 
sented, was appointed to draft the customary 
“Preamble and Resolutions.” Several communi¬ 
cations were presented from districts whose 
delegates were unavoidably prevented from 
attending; they pledged life and property to 
sustain the proceedings of the convention. The 
short notice given and the lack of speedy means 
of travel made it impracticable or impossible for 
many distinguished members of the party to 
reach Greenville in time. 3 

1 Mountaineer, February 8, March 15, 1834; Journal, March 8; 
Patriot, March 17. 

2 Mountaineer, February 22, March 9, 1834. 

3 Mountaineer, March 29, 1834. 


33 © Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The preamble reviewed the objections of the 
Union men to the oath and stated that they 
regarded this attempt to make them violate their 
obligations to the United States as one of a series 
of measures devised to destroy the government 
of the country and to dissolve the Union; they 
expressed the hope and the belief that their oppo¬ 
nents would not be insistent to the point of 
shedding blood, but if they were driven to it, 
force would be opposed by force. They would 
try every peaceful and constitutional remedy first 
and hoped that the judicial tribunals would relieve 
them. The resolutions were much like those 
of the earlier Greenville district meeting; they 
recommended that the Unionists should elect 
officers of their own party whenever they had the 
power to do so, and not serve under any officer 
who might be appointed to command them. 
They then provided for a system of organization 
for the party. A committee of five members was 
appointed to correspond with a committee of three 
in each regiment, who should correspond with a 
committee of three or more in each beat company. 
These committees were together to form a con¬ 
vention to meet whenever and wherever required 
to do so by a majority of the committee of five. 1 

1 Mountaineer, March 29, 1834. 


The Test Oath 


33 1 


Though the members of the convention seemed 
to display an unalterable resolution to “ resist 
even unto death if necessary” rather than submit 
to the “ tyranny of their opponents,” they seemed 
anxious to adopt such a course as would make the 
Nullifiers the aggressors. Without commencing 
or provoking any hostilities they tried to make 
preparations to repel any attack made upon 
themselves. 

Meetings were soon held in the various dis¬ 
tricts to receive the reports of their delegates and 
approve the action of the convention. At the 
Charleston meeting Joel R. Poinsett related an 
incident of the convention which showed how 
serious the Union men considered their position. 
The officers of a regiment assured him that if the 
test oath should be enforced they were ready with 
their regiment to shoulder their muskets and “seek 
liberty of conscience and the right of freemen in 
another clime”; they desired to know from him 
whether the general government would not assign 
them a territory for that purpose. He told them 
to “stand fast”; that they had a right to the 
soil, and that the “laws and authority of their 
country” would protect and shield them from 
tyranny where they stood; that for his part, here 


332 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

he was born, here he was resolved to die, and no 
persecution should drive him from the soil of 
Carolina, where “the Star Spangled Banner 
should be his shroud, pure and spotless, he hoped; 
but even if stained with blood, still it should be 
his shroud.” 1 

Meantime the Nullifiers persistently claimed 
that there was nothing in the oaths to which 
exception could be taken. Their papers day 
after day printed them as the best argument that 
there was nothing objectionable in them. Their 
editors argued that neither oath was at all differ¬ 
ent from that in half the states of the Union. 2 
They protested that the people of the interior 
were being aroused by misrepresentation. Some 
belittled the paper belligerency of the Union 
party and pronounced it simply a scheme to 
frighten the opposition into calling an extra session 
of the legislature to repeal the military oath. 
Others believed that the agitation was waged as 
a war cry, needed by the leaders, men anxious to 
run for Congress, to keep the party together. 

1 Patriot, April i, 1834. Poinsett Papers: Poinsett to the George¬ 
town meeting, April 18. 

2 Messenger, February 5, March 19, 1834; Merairy, February 18. 
The oaths required in Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa¬ 
chusetts, Kentucky, New York, and Georgia were cited. 


The Test Oath 


333 


The Greenville convention, indeed, was said to 
be nothing more than a means to regain party 
ascendancy, and the Mercury constantly referred 
to it as “the late electioneering doings .” 1 

When the elections for militia officers were held, 
several Union men were elected. These men 
refused to take the oath, and their commissions 
were withheld. Several cases went to the courts, 2 
but probably one of the first, which attracted the 
most attention and was followed eagerly by all 
as the test case, arose in Charleston. Judge 
E. H. Bay, of Charleston, on March 4 rendered 
a decision in favor of the constitutionality of the 
military oath. In this case there was a motion 

1 Mercury, February 18, 24, March 3r, April 24, 1834; Messenger, 
February 26, March 19. The Mercury made many efforts to dis¬ 
credit and ridicule the convention. On April 5 it said: “We learn 
that some of the meetings which sent delegates to the Nation of 
Greenville were exceedingly select and private, and the secret well 
kept for a time, as it was entrusted to very few. At Anderson it is 
said that the meeting was over before the people knew it was to take 
place, and if we remember right, that it was necessarily unanimous, 
as besides the chairman and secretary there was a ‘respectable’ 
attendance of only one person. The chairman may have opened the 
meeting as the Dean did the service when his congregation consisted 
of his Clerk, with ‘Dearly beloved Roger,’ instead of ‘Dearly beloved 
Brethren.’ ” 

2 Perry Collection, Vol. XIV, opinion of Judge J. S. Richardson 
in the case of McDonald v. McMeekin, Lancaster district, April, 
1834. 


334 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

for a mandamus to Colonel B. F. Hunt, who com¬ 
manded the Sixteenth Regiment of the South 
Carolina Militia, requiring him to give a com¬ 
mission to Edward McCrady as first lieutenant 
in the Washington Light Infantry, a company of 
the Sixteenth Regiment. The Judge held that 
Colonel Hunt was warranted in refusing the com¬ 
mission because McCrady had refused to take the 
oath prescribed in the tenth section of the militia 
act. An appeal was immediately made to the 
court of appeals. The lawyers on the Union side 
announced that they expected to carry it from 
that court to the federal court, if necessary. The 
case was brought before the court of appeals in 
Charleston on March 31, but as one of the three 
judges was not able to attend, the case was 
ordered to be reargued at the next session of the 
court in Columbia in May. 1 

During April and May the papers were filled 
with the arguments before the court. Every 
part of them was picked to pieces, and some 
references were made to the court by the Nulli- 
fiers which the Union presses cited as efforts to 
intimidate the judges. 2 On June 2, after a hearing 

1 Mercury, March 26, 1834; Mountaineer, April 12. 

2 Patriot, April 29, May 1,1834. 


The Test Oath 


335 


that had been watched eagerly all over the state, 
the court of appeals by a vote of two to one 
annulled the test oath; Judges Joseph Johnson 
and J. B. O’Neall were together against Judge 
William Harper. They held that the convention 
had gone beyond its powers in its attempt to 
delegate power to the legislature to pass the oath 
as an ordinary enactment. 

The Union papers, of course, rejoiced greatly, 
and some predicted that this would put an end 
to the oath controversy . 1 The Nullifiers soon 
reminded them, however, that this was by no 
means the end. They meant to make the oath 
the issue in the next election, carry it through the 
legislature again by two-thirds, and thus have it 
a part of the constitution, beyond the reach of 
Union judges . 2 

Some of the Nullifiers saw that it would be best 
to take no rash or violent step which would 
excite sympathy for their opponents; they 
resolved quietly to direct their whole energies to 
the fall elections . 3 But there were others who 

1 Courier, June 4, 1834. 

2 Mercury, June 5, 1834. 

3 Hammond Papers: William C. Preston to Hammond, June 12, 
1834; Calhoun Correspondence: Calhoun to Pickens, June 5. 


33 6 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

thought that the ultra-consolidation opinions of 
O’Neall and Johnson justified immediate and 
severe rebuke. Some talked of an immediate call 
of the legislature to remove the judges. Others 
thought the governor ought to nullify the deci¬ 
sion by withholding commissions . 1 Some of the 
presses at once began and continued for some time 
an abusive tirade against the Union judges . 2 Some 
there were who thought that the convention had 
committed an error in discussing the oath and 
in giving it an importance that it would not other¬ 
wise have had; that the legislature had made 
a greater error in passing it in the military bill; 
and that the greatest of all errors would be to 
attempt to retrieve by calling an extra session of 
the legislature to remove the judges. Some even 
admitted that the judges were right in their 
decision, but felt that the doctrines put forth by 
Johnson and O’Neall were uncalled for and so 
extreme as to demand the removal of these judges 
in a quiet way at least . 3 

State Rights meetings were held in many quar¬ 
ters to denounce the decision of the court as con- 

1 Hammond Papers: Angus Patterson to Hammond, June 2, 
1834; Preston to Hammond, June 12. 

2 Mountaineer, June 14, 1834; Journal, June 14. 

3 Hammond Papers: Preston to Hammond, June 12, 1834. 


The Test Oath 


337 


taining dangerous doctrines, to declare that the 
appeal court should be remodeled or abolished, 
and to suggest an extra session of the legislature 
for the purpose of passing a law defining treason 
against the state and providing new safeguards 
for the state. Others were more moderate and 
would leave it all to the October elections; to 
this end they began to revive the State Rights 
associations so that they might address the 
people on the heresies of the decision and rally 
them to the election. 1 

The Union papers in turn defended Judges 
O’Neall and Johnson and had much to say about 
the abuse of them and the agitation to remodel 
the court. The independence of the judiciary 
was strongly pleaded for. 2 

Governor Hayne made the deciding move on 
June 12. He issued a proclamation announcing 
the decision of the court of appeals as effective 
and his own decision to issue commissions on the 
basis of the old oath without requiring the new 
one. 3 He had decided on this course only after 

1 Mercury, June g, 12, 1834; Messenger, June 18; Mountaineer, 
June 21. 

2 Patriot, June 10, 1834; Courier, June 11; Journal, June 14. 

3 Mercury, June 13, 1834. 


338 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

thorough consideration and consultation with 
John C. Calhoun, William C. Preston, James 
Hamilton, Jr., George McDuffie, and other leaders 
of the party. He had discovered that the ques¬ 
tion was one of great delicacy and difficulty, and 
one concerning which there was much difference 
of opinion. “On the one hand,” he said in a 
letter to Hammond, written on the day he issued 
the proclamation, “the outrage is so monstrous 
that the failure to meet it promptly and decisively 
may have a depressing effect; but on the other 
hand, there is much danger of rash action under 
the impulse of popular excitement.” The decisive 
point was this: if the legislature were called at 
once, what could it do ? The members of the legis¬ 
lature could not call a convention, amend the 
constitution, impeach or remove the judges, nor 
do any act which required a vote of two-thirds. 
This he had ascertained “beyond a reasonable 
doubt.” An unsuccessful attempt at any one of 
those measures might prove disastrous to the 
party. The members of the legislature therefore 
could do nothing more than express opinions and 
amend the militia law in conformity with the 
decision, unless they should remodel the court 
so as to have the decision reversed. This last 


The Test Oath 


339 


possibility, Hayne thought, would be extremely 
hazardous while the amendment of the consti¬ 
tution was pending before the public, and he knew 
that it would produce a schism in the party. 

Yet anything short of this would be doing nothing, for 
it would be worse than useless to attempt to legislate 
with a partisan court ready to arrest your laws. As 
the legislature can do nothing effectual at present, except 
what it would not be expedient to do, or even to attempt, 
I think there is nothing to be gained by an extra call while 
it would be attended with some risk of dissensions among 
ourselves and injury to our cause from rash measures. 
The delay of a few months, if we can in the meantime 
secure the amendment to the constitution, will give us 
invincible strength. The moderation thus displayed, the 
decisive expression of public opinion at the polls, followed 
by the adoption of the constitutional amendment, settling 
the question of allegiance in South Carolina forever, will 
give us a moral power against which the judges cannot 
stand up. 

The only risk involved in this course was that 
it would fall short of public expectation and 
thereby paralyze the energies of the party. This 
could be avoided, Hayne believed, by public 
meetings and addresses, a revival of the asso¬ 
ciations, and all the means previously found so 
successful. “If the governor,” he added, “shall 


340 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

be considered as having erred in not giving vent 
to the indignant feelings of the party, by an 
immediate call of the legislature, the blame can 
be thrown upon him without impairing the spirit 
of the party, who will know that he goes out of 
office in December next, and even if he were so 
disposed could present no further obstacle in 
their way.” 1 

During the remainder of the summer the 
Union papers criticized the dissenting opinion 
of Judge Harper and defended the opinions of 
Judges O’Neall and Johnson, while the Nulli¬ 
fication papers were just as ready to denounce the 
latter and defend the former. 2 This led to 
several series of articles on theories of sovereignty, 
allegiance, and obedience, all of which were part 
of the campaign of education for the fall elections. 3 

1 Hammond Papers: Hayne to Hammond, June 12, 1834. 

2 Mercury, June 30, July x, 1834; Patriot, June 30. 

3 One of these Union arguments appeared in the Patriot, July 24, 
1834: “The Mercury has been for some days past elaborating several 
essays into a tissue of abstract reasonings, to prove that practical 
is not ultimate sovereignty—in other words, that the government 
of a state is carried on by agents who merely exercise the power of 
the people. Why, this might be granted, and much more, without 
bringing the editor any nearer to his final inference, that the judges 
may not set aside the unconstitutional proceedings of a legislature 
or convention. Judge O’Neall does not deny the right of the people 


The Test Oath 


34i 


In May, before the decision of the court of 
appeals had been rendered, the Nullifiers made 
a great clamor over a discovery they claimed to 
have made, that the Union party was organizing 
a military force to resist the enforcement of the 
oath. Even before this there were rumors that 
the Union men were preparing a military organ¬ 
ization to oppose the decision, which the Nulli¬ 
fiers expected would uphold the oath in spite of 
the fact that two of the three judges were Union 


to control their agents, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, but 
it must be a control exercised in legal form, and he distinguishes very 
properly between the power of the people, as exhibited in the final 
right of revolution, and their power as exercised under the consti¬ 
tutional limitations and restrictions which they themselves have 
imposed. 

“Now, conceding to the Mercury all that it contends for; grant¬ 
ing that allegiance is something different from obedience (and not, as 
Judge Harper argues, merely the highest species of obedience); 
that allegiance is due to nothing but sovereignty; we ask, conceding 
all this, if the government of the United States is not an agency of 
the people of South Carolina, precisely as their state government is; 
if the Constitution of the United States is not their Constitution 
exactly as the state constitution is; if the oaths in that Constitution 
are not as binding on their agents, judicial, legislative, and executive, 
in the same degree and manner as the oaths in the state constitution ? 
Well, none of this being disputed, we ask the Mercury at what time 
did the sovereignty of South Carolina annul the oath in the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States by which it bound all its agents to observe 
that fundamental law, anything in the laws and constitution of a 
state to the contrary notwithstanding. It being not disputed that 


342 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

men. 1 The basis for the clamor of the Nullifiers 
was the following letter, which was secured from 
a messenger by the Nullifiers and widely pub¬ 
lished by them. It was dated Abbeville Court 
House, April 17, 1834, and read: 

The committee of five have assigned the five divisions 
of this state. This district is included in the division 
assigned to Colonel Robert Cunningham, who has just 
written to me to urge an immediate and active organiza¬ 
tion of the regiments of the district, and report to him 

that great law remains unabrogated and the oath referred to unre¬ 
pealed by any act of the sovereignty of South Carolina, we demand 
if the proceedings of a convention are of higher authority to the 
judges than the proceedings of a legislature. The oath in the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States is still there. The people of South 
Carolina in 1787 bound their judicial servants, in common with their 
other servants, to observe that oath, as the condition of office. The 
people of South Carolina have not annulled that sanction, by any 
formal or informal act. Must their judges take it for granted when 
anything is done in convention of the people repugnant to the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States, that the declaration of the supremacy of 
that instrument over state laws and constitutions, and the oath in 
confirmation of it, are impliedly annulled ? Until this be shown, all 
that is contended for may be safely granted without bringing the 
advocates of state sovereignty any nearer to the conclusion that, 
holding allegiance to that sovereignity, they may not set aside an 
ordinance of a convention equally with an act of the legislature. 
Judges O’Neall and Johnson are obeying the sovereignty of South 
Carolina expressly declared in 1787 and not as made out by con¬ 
structive inference in 1834.” 

1 Messenger, May 14, 1834. 


The Test Oath 


343 


without delay the effective strength, equipments, etc., etc. 
of each company. You will please, therefore, make out 
the report for the company you command and send it to 
me without the least delay; you and your subaltern 
officers constitute the company committee. I have here 
drawn a form for your guide. 

It was signed by Thomas P. Spierin, and a post¬ 
script was added, “N.B. Confine your return 
to Union men only .” 1 

With this letter was published a form for 
reports from the company officers as to the 
munitions they could rely upon. In the list were 
mentioned many tools and implements which 
might be used as weapons, among which were 
“battle-axes and butcher knives.” These seemed 
particularly to delight the fancy of the Nullifiers 
for purposes of ridicule and scorn. The “exclu¬ 
sive friends of peace and order,” as the Nullifiers 
termed their opponents, were now said to have 
been guilty of unpardonable deceit, for while 
publicly adopting resolutions in their convention 
favoring resort to the court of appeals, professing 
nothing but peace, seeming to have given up all 
idea of military organization, they were secretly 
organizing a force to be armed with guns, bayonets, 

1 Mercury, May 21, 1834; Messenger, May 21, 28. 


344 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

butcher knives, and battle-axes to resist by vio¬ 
lence the decision of the court, should it be adverse 
to their wishes. Surely they could not pretend 
that all this preparation was merely for the pur¬ 
pose of defense, said their accusers. 1 That was, 
however, distinctly the purpose alleged by the 
Unionsts; they wished to guard against an at¬ 
tempt of the Nullification party to enforce the 
oath in spite of an adverse decision. They justi¬ 
fied the contemplation of such a possibility by 
the fact that the Nullification officers were 
enforcing the military oath while its consti¬ 
tutionality was still pending before the court of 
appeals. 2 

After the decision of the court was announced 
and the Nullifiers had decided to abide by it and 
await the result of the next election, they fre¬ 
quently praised themselves for their moderation 
and forbearance. Necessity, however, probably 
more than anything else, dictated the adoption of 
this policy. Many who thought that Robert 
Cunningham “should have been made a head 
shorter,” asked, “Why have we not an act against 
treason ?” and declared that it “should have been 

1 Messenger, May 21, 28, June 25, 1834. 

2 Patriot, May 19, 22, 1834; Courier, May 23, 24. 


The Test Oath 


345 


one of our first moves.” 1 Other Nullifiers there 
were who considered the entire unfortunate affair 
the result of bad management, for which Governor 
Hayne was largely responsible; they believed 
that he more than anyone else was to blame for 
the oath being put into the military act and 
for not raising the issue solely in the form of 
the constitutional amendment. By this policy the 
Union party, instead of being disorganized as the 
governor had hoped, was furnished with a rallying 
cry and was greatly strengthened. 2 

From the time of the governor’s proclamation 
the Nullifiers began actively to organize and to 
campaign for the fall contest. In Charleston the 
Revolutionary Society and the ’76 Association 
had coalesced and formed the Whig Association, 
a Nullification, anti-Jackson political organiza¬ 
tion. This proved the cue for the rest of the 
state, and during the summer Whig associations 
were formed in many quarters. July 4 was a 
convenient occasion for the promotion of these 
societies. 3 

1 Hammond Papers: Preston to Hammond, June 12, 1834. 

2 Hammond Papers: James Jones to Hammond, April 14, 1834; 
Angus Patterson to Hammond, June 22. 

3 Mercury, June 23, July, 1834; Messenger, July 9, 16, 30, 
August 13. 


346 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The Nullification party declared that the great 
battle which was to decide whether it were to lose 
the fruits of all its victories in the cause of state 
rights was to be fought at the polls in October. 
Even Judge Johnson had been constrained to 
admit that the adoption of the proposed amend¬ 
ment of the constitution would remove all legal 
objections and compel the judges to enforce it. 1 
It was clear, therefore, that the Union men must 
by some means manage to defeat the amendment 
or be compelled to take the oath and acknowledge 
their allegiance to the state. To prevent this 
contingency no stone must be left unturned, and 
greater efforts must be made in the October elec¬ 
tion than had been put forth at any stage of the 
controversy. It was, for the Union party and 
its principles, asserted the Nullifiers, a struggle 
for life or death. Allegiance to South Carolina 
recognized the sovereignty of the state; and men 
might say what they pleased, but the true—they 
felt that they might say almost the only—differ¬ 
ence between the parties arose from the admission 
or denial of state sovereignty. The Unionists 
really believed, said the Nullifiers, that the govern- 

1 Some Union men, however, still held that it would be against 
the United States Constitution and therefore null and void. 


The Test Oath 


347 


ment was a consolidated government, a great 
nation, one and indivisible; while the State Rights 
party believed it to be a federal or confederated 
government, founded in compact between free, 
sovereign, and independent states, united only 
for special purposes, written down in the Consti¬ 
tution, and in which each state retained its sov¬ 
ereignty unimpaired; this was the point on which 
the whole controversy turned, and the amend¬ 
ment of the constitution would settle the ques¬ 
tion in South Carolina forever; this was the 
vital importance of the October elections. The 
Unionists knew all this, said the State Rights 
men, and though confessedly in a minority they 
still hoped they might be able to carry one-third of 
the members either in the Senate or in the House; 
and as this would defeat the amendment they 
would pursue this last hope in great desperation. 
Let the State Rights party then be on its guard . 1 

In an effort to discredit the Union party, the 
Nullifiers did all they could to prove that the 
Unionists were contemplating a resort to arms 
to resist the oath. To prove this, and to show 
that the creed of the party was one of pure con¬ 
solidation, they cited an appeal in behalf of the 

1 Mercury, June 24, 1834. 


348 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Union party to the people of the United States, 
published in the National Intelligencer and copied 
by the Union papers in South Carolina. They 
asserted that the appeal was no less than an 
advance to a close union between the consolida- 
tionists of the North and of the South. It was 
a proffer from the latter of an offensive and 
defensive alliance to secure in advance the sym¬ 
pathy and support of its “national” allies, when 
the Unionists should be “driven to the field” to 
uphold the creed of Daniel Webster. They had 
thus registered their adherence to the champion 
of the tariff and the sworn enemy of southern 
and state rights. In his cause and for his 
creed they were willing to take up arms. 
This appeal, said the Nullifiers, displayed the 
Unionists in their true light, as betrayers of the 
South. 1 

The Union men worked strenuously to prevent 
their opponents from gaining complete control of 
another legislature. They pointed out that the 
Nullifiers would require not only all officers to 
take this “revolting oath,” but that the voters 
might be called upon next to do so. Then would 

1 Mercury, August 11, 21, November 17, 1834; Messenger, 
August 13, 20. 


The Test Oath 


349 


come the bill defining treason, with its “pains 
and penalties,” the destruction of the appeal 
court and anything else that might “enter the 
heads of the most reckless despots that ever ruled 
a kingdom, republic, or state.” 1 It was proposed 
by the Union leaders that the people hold meetings 
throughout the state and sign a solemn protest 
against the test oath. Their numbers, when 
shown to the legislature, might have its influence. 
It was suggested that papers should be drawn up 
for this purpose in every beat company in the 
state, and that every man who “valued his liberty 
and the freedom of thinking for himself” should 
sign such a remonstrance. In this way only could 
the strength of the anti-test oath party be made 
known, for the representation in the coming 
legislature, it was said, would not be a fair expres¬ 
sion of the voice of the people on the subject; for 
example, in Pendleton district there were said to 
be 1,400 voters opposed to the test oath, yet that 
district would send her whole representation, seven 
representatives and one senator, in favor of the 
oath; in York district there had been a difference 
of but twenty-six or twenty-eight votes between 
the two parties at the last election, yet the entire 

1 Mountaineer, August 9, 1834. 


350 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

representation belonged to the test oath party 
and this party might again gain control by such 
a narrow margin. 

Great efforts were made by the Union party to 
convince the people that theirs was no common 
warfare; it was one of defense against “wanton 
oppression and implacable tyranny,” aimed imme¬ 
diately at the Union party in South Carolina, 
but having for its ultimate object the destruction 
of the national Union. Let none be deluded 
by the artifices of the Nullifiers; they would 
“sing the siren song of peace and try to charm and 
cheat the Union party into the belief that they 
were as harmless as doves”; they would fain 
persuade the Union men that the proposed oath 
of allegiance required no pledge inconsistent with 
the Union men’s cherished opinions; but all this 
was only a mask assumed to influence the pending 
elections and to be cast aside as soon as it should 
have served the purpose. Their object and their 
fixed resolve was to pass the oath in the meaning 
of the ordinance of the convention and thus 
render it in effect an abjuration of allegiance to the 
Union, “a severance of the hallowed tie of Ameri¬ 
can citizenship.” Their meditated assault upon 
the independence of the judiciary, “the most 


The Test Oath 


35i 


sacred column of our social edifice,” was cited as 
an example of the means they might adopt to 
accomplish disunion. In consequence of such 
arguments in the press, meetings were held and 
many protests were prepared to send to the 
legislature. 1 

The Charleston city election on September 2 
proved another victory for the Nullification party 
by a safe margin. The Unionists, however, had 
explanations to offer for their defeat, and zealously 
endeavored to rally for the state election. 2 This 
exciting state election, termed by many the most 
important in the history of the state to that date, 
proved to be another victory for the Nullifiers, 
though not by so large a majority as two years 
before. In Charleston their majority was reduced 
somewhat and the election was so close that there 
was an average of only 115 votes difference out of 
some 2,700 votes cast. It was so close that the 
Union men claimed that the corrupt practices 
of their opponents were all that gave them the 

1 Mountaineer, September 6, November 15, 1834; Journal, 
September, 13, 27; Courier, November xi; Mercury, November 17; 
Messenger, September 17. 

2 Mercury, August 28, 30, September 3, 6, 1834; Patriot, August 
28, September 1, 3, 6; Courier, September 3; Messenger, Septem¬ 
ber 10. 


352 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


victory. 1 The returns showed that there would 
be in the Senate 32 State Rights men and 13 
Union men, and in the House 93 of the former 
and 31 of the latter. 2 

1 Patriot, October 15, 1834; Courier, October 16; Mercury, 
October 16. The State Rights men declared that the malpractice 
of their opponents was all that accounted for their increase over the 
last election. A writer in the Courier, January 1,1835, thus described 
the preceding fall elections: “That period arrived and the debasing 
struggle of bribery, corruption, and intrigue was conducted with a 
virulence that surpassed all that had been before enacted amongst 
us. The virtuous man forgot the precepts he had inculcated and 
practiced; honorable men laid aside for the time the badge that they 
valued dearer than life; the rich man opened his purse strings to 
feed the unprincipled villains who were willing to sell their birthright 
for a mess of pottage; the working-man abandoned his daily employ¬ 
ment for the haunts of vice, with the view of obtaining from among 
the filthy horde some creature whom he might suborn to vote for the 
cause he advocated; all, all were engaged in the unholy work of 
breaking down the very pillars of virtue, upon which rests the fabric 
of our government.” 

2 Mercury, October 30, 1834; Journal, November 8. The popular 
vote was roughly estimated at 15,000 Union and 20,000 State Rights, 
by the Mountaineer, November x, and the Journal, November 8; 
at from 17,000 to 18,000 Union and 21,000 to 22,000 State Rights, by 
the Patriot, October 25; and more closely at 17,446 Union and 22,901 
State Rights, 18,242 Union and 22,742 State Rights, 20,601 Union 
and 23,085 State Rights, by the Patriot, November 6,11, and 15,1834. 

The returns were alleged by the Union men to show diminished 
majorities in the districts where the Nullifiers had been hitherto in 
the ascendancy, and increased vote of the Union party in those 
districts where they held the power ( Journal, October 25). 

The State Rights men claimed that their party polled a smaller 
vote than two years previously because the excitement was not so 


The Test Oath 


353 


Thus the Nullifiers had a two-thirds majority 
in both houses and could adopt their oath as an 
amendment to the constitution. Their popular 
vote, however, was somewhat short of a two- 
thirds majority of the votes cast. 1 The Union 
papers immediately pointed out this fact and 
urged that while so large a minority was opposed 
to measures which they believed would deprive 
them of “all the rights that a patriot held sacred,” 
their oppressors should “take timely warning, 
lest an insulted and injured people follow that 
course which none but slaves would for a moment 
hesitate to pursue.” They asserted that in spite 
of a provision in the constitution that two-thirds 
of both branches of the legislature of two suc- 


great in their party since the compromise of the tariff question, and 
because the people were not likely to turn out well when the majority 
in their district was known to be large and there was therefore no 
spirited opposition (Messenger November 5). 

In the state’s delegation to Congress, the Union men gained one 
more member. They now had two of the nine; James Rogers, from 
the district composed of York, Chester, Spartanburg, and Union, 
and Richard I. Manning, from the district composed of Kershaw, 
Sumter, Lancaster, and Chesterfield ( Journal , November 1). 

1 The Mercury, November 1, 1834, doubted the assertion that the 
State Rights party did not have two-thirds, and declared that they 
very nearly had that majority; the census showed 45,000 voters and 
the Mercury estimated the Union voters at 15,000. See Maps X 
and XI and p. 107, n. 3. 


354 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

cessive legislatures could adopt amendments, the 
intent was to have two-thirds of the voters. The 
State Rights men ridiculed this claim. Suppose 
they said, that the result of the late election had 



proved that two-thirds of the voters were in favor 
of the amendment, while more than one-third of the 
representatives elected were opposed to it, would 
the Union party have agreed that the amendment 
should be made ? It would not do for the Union 
party to insist that either the voters or their 
representatives were to be regarded just as might 
































The Test Oath 


355 


happen to suit their own purposes; the amend¬ 
ment must be made as the constitution directed, 
by the legislature, and not according to popular 
vote . 1 



The legislature met and all watched eagerly. 
The governor’s message reviewed the situation and 
recommended the oath . 2 As the debates pro¬ 
gressed there was talk of a bill defining treason, 

1 Mountaineer, November 8, 1834; Mercury, November 8. 

3 For this action he was accordingly attacked and praised by the 
respective party presses ( Courier, November 28, 1834; Mountaineer, 
November 29; Mercury, November 29). 


































356 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

with its pains and penalties, to enforce the oath 
when enacted. 1 It seemed certain that the oath 
would be adopted and there were various sug¬ 
gestions for plans of action by Union supporters. 
One plan proposed a secession of the Union mem¬ 
bers from the legislature upon the passage of the 
oath, and a convention at Charleston to denounce 
the state government and prepare a military 
organization of the Union party to prevent any 
more elections to the state legislature until the 
oath should be repealed. 2 

Finally, quite unexpectedly, the clouds were 
cleared away and the struggle was at an end with 
neither side positively victorious or vanquished. 
With the bill to amend the constitution by adding 
to it the oath of allegiance, was reported by the 
Committee on Federal Relations a construction 
of the amendment which the Union members 
thought would allow them to take the oath and in 
no way impair the obligations they felt toward the 
United States. Accordingly the bill was passed 
without opposition, and the treason bill and the 
plan for remodeling the judiciary were dropped. 3 

1 Patriot, December 6, 1834. 

2 Mercury, November 29, 1834. 

3 Mercury, December 11, 1834; Patriot, December n. 


The Test Oath 


357 


The Union members of the legislature prepared 
an address to the people, explaining their reasons 
for accepting the report of the Joint Committee 
on Federal Relations. With the bill to amend the 
constitution was introduced a bill to define treason, 
and notice was given of one to follow which would 
amend the judiciary system of the state. These 
measures led to the conviction that the majority 
would give the oath of allegiance to the state 
a construction which the Union men believed was 
incompatible with the Constitution of the United 
States. When the amendment was passed, the 
Union men declared that they would enter on the 
journals their protest, but before that was neces¬ 
sary the Joint Committee on Federal Relations 
reported, in regard to the petitions filed against 
the oath, that “the allegiance required by the 
amendment is that allegiance which every citizen 
owes to the state consistently with the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States.” This was adopted 
by large majorities in both houses. 1 

The Union men at once regarded it as an offer 
of conciliation and a pledge that the acts defining 
treason and amending the judiciary would not be 

1 The vote was 36 to 4 in the Senate, and 90 to 28 in the House; 
see Messenger, December 24,1834. 


358 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

passed. They therefore withdrew their notice 
of protest and asked all their party to accept the 
settlement, since the interpretation given the 
oath did not impair their allegiance to the Con¬ 
stitution and laws of the United States. It was, 
they declared, under these circumstances and 
with these views that they had accepted the 
accommodation in the same spirit of kindness and 
with the same anxious desire to restore harmony 
to the distracted state with which they believed 
it had been tendered. They did not ask the 
majority to surrender any opinions which they 
conscientiously but privately held, nor on their 
part did they intend to surrender theirs. They 
considered this effort at conciliation an under¬ 
standing between the two great political parties of 
the state that the new oath should receive that 
construction which was consistent with the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States. For themselves, 
they accepted it in the full confidence that it 
meant no more than that they would be faithful 
to the state in performing all her constitutional 
requisitions and would render her “true alle¬ 
giance” to the full extent of all her reserved 
rights and sovereign powers, and that this was not 
inconsistent with the obligations they owed and 


The Test Oath 


359 


the allegiance they bore to the United States, to 
the full extent of all the powers conferred by the 
federal Constitution. And they did not deem 
it inconsistent with the good faith with which 
they had accepted this accommodation and 
intended to maintain it, to declare that while 
they were swearing to be faithful to the state, 
they intended “to support the Constitution and 
laws of the United States made in pursuance 
thereof, as the supreme law of the land.” 1 

The Nullifiers of course claimed that the report 
of the committee though mild and temperate had 
really conceded nothing. They maintained that 
this report did not compromise a single principle of 
those for which their party had contended, but 
merely was not extreme in the assertion of them. 
The most influential leaders of the party were 
willing to adopt the report as submitted if it would 
give the Union men any satisfaction. Some, how¬ 
ever, wanted the allegiance due to the state stated 
in stronger terms, and an amendment was offered 
to the effect that the state in her sovereign 
capacity had the exclusive right to determine what 
obligations the citizens of South Carolina owed the 
federal government. It failed, by a vote of 32 

1 Messenger, December 24, 1834; Courier, December 24. 


360 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

to 86, though the State Rights party would have 
accepted it at any other time; the majority saw 
no reason to antagonize the Union men further. 1 

The compromise was hailed with satisfaction 
throughout the Union. The State Rights papers 
outside of South Carolina were reported to ap¬ 
prove, and the opposition papers seemed to think 
it a great victory because the legislature declared 
the oath to require only such allegiance as every 
citizen owed to the state consistently with the 
Constitution of the United States. The State 
Rights men considered this strange, when not 
a word was changed in the oath and it had always 
required the person taking it to support the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States. 2 As a matter of 
interpretation as to the extent of this support in 
case of conflict between the state and the federal 
governments, however, the Union men believed 
that before the assurance held out in the report 
the federal government would have been deserted 
for the state. 

In South Carolina the Columbia Times, a State 
Rights paper, and the Greenville Mountaineer, 

1 Hammond Papers: I. W. Hayne to Hammond, December 8,1834. 
Messenger, December 17, 24, 1834; Niles’ Register, December 27. 

2 Messenger, January 14, 1835. 


The Test Oath 


3 61 


a Union press, were said to be the only ones of 
either party which expressed dissatisfaction. The 
former objected because the treason bill was 
dropped, and the latter because it claimed that 
if a close examination and literal interpretation 
were made, it would be found that the oath and 
explanation still demanded allegiance to the state 
and only obedience to the United States, which 
to the editor seemed to be giving paramount 
obligation to the state. He thought that the 
Union party had disgracefully yielded all. But 
even this one Union leader, after expressing his 
views, determined to speak of it no more. 1 

On the day after the compromise was reached 
came the election of the governor of the state. 
George McDuffie received the unanimous vote of 
the Union party as well as of his own. Apparently 
concord was restored in South Carolina. The 
Union men would take the oath, but whether the 
bitterness of party feeling was to be much allayed 
was questionable. It would evidently be long 
before it was entirely extinguished. 2 

The year 1835 opened with nearly every editor 
in the state doing his utmost to promote harmony. 

1 Mountaineer, December 13, 1834; Messenger, January 14, 1835. 

2 Messenger, December 17, 1834; Niles Register, December 20. 


362 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

The watchword of all seemed to be to forgive and 
forget the past differences. It seemed that the 
“demon of civil war” had flown, “affrighted at 
the approach of the peaceful dove. The arrows 
were displaced and the graceful olive branch 
occupied their station.” The warfare of years 
had been settled in a day and the terms of peace 
were ratified by a rejoicing people. 1 2 

Some flurries of discordant winds appeared 
occasionally to fan the old flame, but these never 
proved of serious consequence. They arose when 
editors of either side felt called upon to deny 
stories they had heard or read of an impression 
being abroad somewhere that their party had 
made the greater concessions in the settlement. 
It was then pointed out anew that the settlement 
was a true compromise, resting on the basis of 
mutual concession, the Union party conceding the 
passage of the oath, and the Nullifiers conceding 
the freedom of every man to interpret it according 
to his own understanding of the obligations owed 
under the federal Constitution. 3 

1 Courier, January 1, 1835; Mercury, January; Mountaineer, 
January, February, and March; Journal, January 31; Messenger, 
February 13. 

2 Courier, January 16, 1835; Journal, February 7. 


The Test Oath 


3 6 3 


In Greenville, the Union hotbed of the interior, 
there seemed to be more dissatisfaction with the 
adjustment than elsewhere. It seemed to be so 
formidable there that the Greenville district del¬ 
egates in the legislature addressed their constit¬ 
uents on the recent accommodation. They said 
that they understood that there was much dis¬ 
satisfaction in the district with the settlement and 
with their having voted for it. They requested 
the several beat companies to take a vote on the 
course they had pursued; if a majority were 
opposed, they would resign and make room for 
new representatives. But there were not enough 
in the district opposed to the reconciliation to 
cause any resignations; on the contrary, many 
strong supporters declared that the Greenville 
delegates had acted most honorably and patrioti¬ 
cally by holding out against the amendment 
only until they saw further resistence would be 
folly. 1 

On the occasion of the celebration of July 4 
a number of toasts were reported from various 
places showing that a determination for ultimate 
disunion seemed still to be nursed by the authors. 
These the Union papers regretted and pointed 

1 Messenger, February 13, 1835. 


364 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

to with scorn. 1 The congressional campaign in 
the districts of Greenville and Pendleton, to fill 
the vacancy caused by the death of Warren R. 
Davis, displayed some signs of being waged on the 
old party basis, with claims to office resting upon 
opposition to or support of the oath in the past 
controversy. Though this policy of openly reviv¬ 
ing the old contest proved unpopular, the candi¬ 
dates were supported as State Rights and Union 
party men. These lines were kept distinct in the 
voting, and the result of the election was hailed 
as a State Rights victory. Though the quarrel 
was not openly renewed, the two parties still 
quietly maintained their opinions and voted for 
men according to their known position thereon. 2 

In August there was held a militia brigade 
encampment of officers at Pickensville. Before 
it opened there had been a rumor that a portion 
of the officers of Greenville, dissatisfied Union 
men, would not attend. This proved to be the 
case and a majority of the officers from that dis¬ 
trict were absent. The governor in his address 
was especially complimentary to those of the 

1 Journal, July 18, 1835. 

2 Messenger, April 3, 17, May 1, September ii, 1835; Mountain¬ 
eer, September 12; Courier, November 11. 


The Test Oath 


3 6 5 


Union party who had turned out and performed 
their duty in obedience to the laws of the state. 
He asserted that their conduct was evidently to 
be attributed to patriotic motives and that he 
could never again regard them and himself as 
belonging to different parties. Preparations were 
made immediately for a court-martial to try all 
who had refused to attend the encampment. At 
least four of these officers were found guilty of 
“wilful disobedience of orders” and “combi¬ 
nation with other officers to defy and resist the 
laws of the state”; they were sentenced to be 
cashiered and disqualified from holding a com¬ 
mission in the militia of South Carolina for one 
year and to pay a fine, some $50 and others $6o. x 


1 Messenger, August 21, November 20, 27, 1835. One of these 
officers, Major Henry Smith, of the Third Regiment, wrote a public 
explanation: “It is notoriously known that all the field and most 
of the company officers of the Third Regiment, who were elected on 
the nth of April, 1834, were under positive instructions from the 
people to oppose certain provisions of what is commonly called the 
military bill; and I being of that class of officers, was of course 
bound by the plainest rules of republicanism to obey their instruc¬ 
tions. The only question, therefore, for consideration, was whether 
I was or was not released from those obligations by the late com¬ 
promise. In order to solve this question, Colonel McNeely, myself, 
and some other officers concluded to take the opinion of as many of 
the citizens as we could call together, which we did, and after some 
consultation it was decided that we were not released from the 


366 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Thus the signs of the late contest had not 
entirely passed. Not until a Union man was 
elected governor in 1840 was it admitted with 
virtual unanimity that the old party lines had 
disappeared. 

obligations under which we were elected. Therefore I could not 
attend the late encampment without proving recreant to those whom 
I have the honor to command, by openly violating their oft expressed 
will, as well as my own personal feelings.” 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS 

Grayson, William J. Memoirs. One volume in manu¬ 
script form, possessed by South Carolina College and 
held under the personal guardianship of Professor 
Yates Snowden. 

Hammond Papers. Personal correspondence and papers 
of James H. Hammond. The first eight volumes 
cover the period in hand. Preserved in the Library 
of Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Jackson Papers. Personal correspondence and papers of 
Andrew Jackson. Preserved in the Library of Con¬ 
gress, Washington, D.C. 

Poinsett Papers. Personal correspondence of Joel R. 
Poinsett. Volumes IV to XVI inclusive. Held by 
the Pennsylvania Library Society, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. 

Van Buren Papers. Personal correspondence and papers 
of Martin Van Buren. Preserved in the Library of 
Congress, Washington, D.C. 

NEWSPAPERS 

Camden Journal. Its predecessor was the Southern 
Chronicle and Camden Gazette in 1822 and 1823, which 
became the Southern Chronicle and Camden Aegis in 
1824, and then the Southern Chronicle and Camden 
367 


368 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Literary and Political Register in 1825. Vol. 1, No. 1, 
of the Camden Journal was issued on January 21, 
1826, by Charles A. Bullard. Weekly. It was taken 
over by G. W. Addison on April 22, 1826. C. F. 
Daniels, formerly editor of the Cheraw Spectator, be¬ 
came the editor of the Journal in 1826 and became 
sole owner and editor on January 8, 1831. On 
January 5, 1833, Pegues and Norment took charge, 
the former as editor. On May 3, 1834, the name was 
changed to the Camden Journal and Southern Whig. 
On January 3, 1835, John C. West became the editor 
and publisher. With Vol. X, No. 52, December 25, 
1835, it was discontinued, but was started again on 
January 23, 1836, by J. C. West, as the Camden 
Journal. Mr. David R. Williams, of Camden, South 
Carolina, has a nearly complete file of these Camden 
papers from 1822 to 1841. South Carolina College 
Library, Columbia, South Carolina, has the files from 
January 12, 1833, to December 25, 1834. The paper 
was a weekly, of four pages and five columns. 

Camden and Lancaster Beacon. Moved from Lancaster 
to Camden and new series was started, Vol. I, No. 1, 
Whole No. 21, March 15, 1831. The file owned by 
David R. Williams, of Camden, South Carolina, ends 
with Vol. I, No. 43, Whole No. 62, December 27, 
1831. Weekly; edited by J. D. Cooke. 

Charleston Carolina Gazette. Weekly edition of the 
Charleston City Gazette, published for country cir¬ 
culation. Charleston Library Society, Charleston, 
South Carolina. 


Bibliography 


3 6 9 


Charleston City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser. 
From Vol. VI, No. 1,044, September 8, 1788, to 
April 12, 1833. Daily, six columns, 21 by 15 inches. 
Published by James Haig in 1828. On August 4, 
1828, T. L. Smith took charge; he resigned on 
January 5, 1829. On December 31, 1829, William 
Gilmore Simms, Jr., and E. S. Duryea took 
over the paper. On April 9, 1832, W. G. Simms 
appeared as sole editor and publisher, and was 
succeeded by William L. Poole, June 7, 1832. 
Charleston Library Society, Charleston, South 
Carolina. 

Charleston Courier. From Vol. I, No. 1, January 10, 1803, 
to January, 1841. Daily, six columns, 21 by 15 
inches. Edited by A. S. Willington in 1828. On 
January 1, 1833, Richard Yeadon, Jr., and William S. 
King became partners of Willington. On January 2, 
1837, enlarged to seven columns, 24 by 17 inches. 
Charleston Library Society, Charleston, South Caro¬ 
lina. 

Charleston Mercury. From Vol. II, No. 314, January 8, 
1823, to Vol. VIII, No. 2,069, December 31, 1828. 
From Vol. IX, No. 2,208, July 1, 1829, to January, 
1841. Daily, six columns, 21 by 15 inches. Pub¬ 
lished by Henry L. Pinckney in 1828. On October 31, 
1832, John A. Stuart became editor. On March 20, 
1837, enlarged to seven columns, 25 by 19 inches, and 
J. Milton Clapp became associate editor. In 1845 
Clapp became sole editor. Charleston Library 
Society, Charleston, South Carolina. 


37 ° Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Charleston Southern Patriot. From Vol. IX, No. 2,123, 
January 2, 1819, to Vol. XXIII, No. ?, June 30, 

1829. From Vol. XXIII, No. 3,359, January 2, 

1830, to Vol. XXXVIII, No. 6,134, June 30, 1838. 
From Vol. XLI, No. 6, 281, January 1, 1839, to Vol. 
XLIII, No. 6,748, June 30,1840. Daily, six columns, 
2i| by 17 inches. Published by J. N. Cardozo. 
On October 2, 1837, enlarged to 24 by 17 inches. 
Charleston Library Society, Charleston, South 
Carolina. 

Charleston State Rights and Free Trade Evening Post. 
From Vol. I, No. 1, October 1, 1831, to Vol. II, No. 
376, December 31, 1832. From Vol. II, No. 531, 
July 3, 1833, to Vol. Ill, No. 683, December 30, 1833. 
Daily, six columns, 22 by 15 inches. Printed for 
J. A. Stuart by William Gray. On November 1, 
1832, Norris and Gitsinger became proprietors. A 
country edition was issued three times a week. 
Charleston Library Society, Charleston, South Caro¬ 
lina. 

Columbia Free Press and Hive. From Vol. I, No. 1, 
February 5, 1831, to Vol. I, No. 52, January 28, 1832. 
Weekly, five columns. Edited by A. Landrum. 
File owned by Col. E. H. Aull, Newberry, South 
Carolina. 

( Columbia ) South Carolina State Gazette and Columbia 
Advertiser. From Vol. XXXVI, No. 2,006, June 27, 
1829, to Vol. XXXVI, No. 2,019, September 26, 
1829. Weekly, five columns. Published by D. & 
J. M. Faust. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 


Bibliography 


37i 


Columbia Southern Times. From Vol. I, No. 1, January 
29, 1830, to Vol. I, No. 45, July 5, 1830. Semi¬ 
weekly, issued on Monday and Thursday, five 
columns. Edited at first by McMorris and Wilson; 
after April 29 by S. J. McMorris. South Carolina 
College Library, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Columbia Southern Times and State Gazette. From Vol. I, 
No. 46, July 8, 1830, to Vol. I, No. 108, December 30, 
1830. Successor to the Southern Times. South 
Carolina College Library, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Columbia Southern Times and State Gazette. From Vol. 
VI, No. 27, July 10, 1835, to Vol. VIII, No. 55, 
December 29, 1837. Weekly, six columns. Pub¬ 
lished by S. Weir and edited by S. Donelly. New¬ 
berry College Library, Newberry, South Carolina. 

Columbia Southern Times and State Gazette for 1831, Colum¬ 
bia Southern Times and South Carolina State Gazette 
for 1832, Columbia Telescope for 1832. Scattered 
copies of these papers for the years indicated, in a 
bound volume of miscellaneous papers, loaned to 
South Carolina College Library by Mr. A. S. Salley, 
Jr., of the State Historical Commission. 

Columbia Telescope. From Vol. XV, No. n, March 13, 
1829, to Vol. XVII, No. 48, December 20, 1831. 
From Vol. XIX, No. 1, January 1, 1833, to Vol. XIX, 
No. 57, December 31, 1833. A few issues missing. 
Weekly, six columns. Published in 1829 by D. W. 
Sims. On August 9, 1831, A. S. Johnston took 
charge. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 


372 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Greenville Mountaineer. From Vol. I, No. 2, January 17, 
1829, to Vol. XXII, No. 36, Whole No. 1,076, 
January n, 1850. Weekly, five columns, 19! by 
13 inches. O. H. Wells editor and publisher in 1829. 
B. F. Perry became editor on January 16, 1830. Dis¬ 
continued from January 14 to May 14, 1831. On 
March 30, 1833, Perry resigned and 0 . H. Wells 
conducted the paper until November 15, 1834, when 
W. L. Yancey became editor and continued as such 
until May 16, 1835, when Wells again took charge. 
File owned by Mr. A. H. Wells, of Greenville, South 
Carolina. 

Greenville Republican. From Vol. I, No. 1, July 12, 1826, 
to Vol. II, No. 53, August 30, 1828. Weekly, five 
columns. File owned by Mr. A. H. Wells, of Green¬ 
ville, South Carolina. 

Niles' Weekly Register. From Vol. XXV, or Vol. I, 
Third Series, September, 1823, to Vol. LIX, or Vol. 
IX, Fifth Series, March, 1841. Changed the name 
to Niles' National Register in September, 1837. 

Pendleton Messenger. From 1826 to 1848. Edited by 
Frederick W. Symmes. Weekly, five columns. 
South Carolina College Library, Columbia, South 
Carolina. 

Southern Christian Herald, Columbia, South Carolina. 
From Vol. I, No. 1, March 18, 1834, to Vol. Ill, No. 
52, March 24, 1837. Weekly, six columns. Edited 
by R. S. Gladney. Published by Samuel Weir. 
Moved to Cheraw, April 8, 1836, when M. MacLean 


Bibliography 3 73 

became editor and proprietor. Newberry College 
Library, Newberry, South Carolina. 

Washington Daily National Intelligencer. From Vol. 
XV, No. 4,348, January 1, 1827, to January, 1841. 
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 

Yorkville Pioneer and South Carolina Whig. Successor 
to the Pioneer and Commercial Register. From 
Vol. I, No. 1, July 4, 1829, to Vol. I, No. 26, January 
9, 1830. Published by Cooke and Foulkes. Library 
of Congress, Washington, D.C. 


PAMPHLET COLLECTIONS 

Charleston Library Society Collection of Pamphlets. 
Five series, totaling 79 bound volumes and several 
hundred unbound. All well indexed and catalogued 
as to titles, subjects, and authors. 

Curry (J. L. M.) Collection of Pamphlets, in the State 
Department of History and Archives, Montgomery, 
Alabama. 113 bound volumes of pamphlets relating 
mostly to a later period, but with a few on this 
period. 

Kennedy Free Library of Spartanburg, South Carolina, 
Collection of Pamphlets. 6 bound volumes of 
pamphlets and a number of pamphlets unbound. 

Kohn Collection of Pamphlets, owned by August Kohn 
of Columbia, South Carolina. About 50 bound 
volumes of miscellaneous ante-bellum pamphlets. 


374 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Perry (B. F.) Collection of Pamphlets, in the State Depart¬ 
ment of History and Archives, Montgomery, Ala¬ 
bama. 44 bound volumes, with from one to sixty 
pamphlets to the volume. They contain a great 
variety of material on the economic, political, finan¬ 
cial, industrial, social, religious, and educational 
phases of South Carolina and southern history from 
1800 to i860. Several relate to the subject in hand. 

Phillips Collection of Pamphlets, owned by Professor 
U. B. Phillips of Ann Arbor, Michigan. About 500 
pamphlets on a wide range of subjects concerning 
the South in the ante-bellum period, about 25 of which 
relate to this subject. 

Snowden Collection of Pamphlets, owned by Professor 
Yates Snowden of Columbia, South Carolina. About 
200 ante-bellum pamphlets, bound and unbound, of 
which 25 or 30 relate to this subject. 

South Carolina College Collection of Pamphlets, Colum¬ 
bia, South Carolina. Several hundred ante-bellum 
pamphlets, many of which deal with this subject. 
The College Library has the S. D. Langtree Collec¬ 
tion of American Pamphlets, on miscellaneous 
subjects and various states; 92 volumes of 1,128 
pamphlets. 

[To give the complete title, author, date, and place 
of publication of all the pamphlets which relate to the 
subject and period would be to extend the bibliography 
to unreasonable length. Those found especially helpful 
have been referred to by complete title in the footnotes.] 


Bibliography 


375 


PUBLISHED CORRESPONDENCE, REMINIS¬ 
CENCES, DEBATES, AND RECORDS 

Adams, J. Q. Memoirs. Edited by C. F. Adams. 
Philadelphia, 1874-76. 

Ames, H. V. State Documents on Federal Relations; the 
States and the United States. Philadelphia, 1906. 

Annals of the Congress of the United States. 18th Cong., 
1st Sess., 1823-24. 

Beers’ Carolinas and Georgia Almanack for 1827. 

Calhoun, John C. Works. 6 volumes. Edited by 
Richard K. Cralle. New York, 1859-64. 

-. Correspondence. Edited by J. Franklin Jame¬ 
son. American Historical Association Report for 
1899, Vol. II. 

Clay, Henry. Works. Edited by C. Colton. New 
York, 1904. 

Congressional Documents. 18th Cong, to the 24th 
Cong. 

Congressional Globe. Vol. I, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., 1833- 
34; Vol. II, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., 1834-35. 

Farrand, Max. Records of the Federal Convention of 
1787. New Haven, 1911. 

Federalist, The. Edited by H. C. Lodge. New York, 
1888. 

General Court of Massachusetts. State Papers on Nulli¬ 
fication. 

Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. Edited by H. C. 
Lodge. New York, 1885-86. 



376 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. Edited by P. L. Ford. 
New York, 1892-99. 

Johnston, Alexander. American Orations. New York, 
1898. 

Legare, Hugh Swinton. Writings. Edited by his sister. 
Published in Charleston, 1846. 

Madison, James. Letters on Nullification. American 
Historical Review, Vols. VI and VII. 

-. Papers; Correspondence and Reports of De¬ 
bates. Edited by H. D. Gilpin. Washington, 1840. 

-. Writings. Edited by G. Hunt. New York, 

1900-1910. 

Marshall, John. Constitutional Decisions. Edited by 
J. P. Cotton. New York, 1905. 

-. Writings upon the Federal Constitution. Bos¬ 
ton, 1839. 

Miller’s Agricultural Almanac for 1828 for the States of 
Carolina and Georgia. Published by A. E. Miller, 
4 Broad Street, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Miller’s Planters’ and Merchants’ Almanac for the years 
1829 to 1831 inclusive, 1834 to 1840 inclusive. 

Perry, Benjamin F. Biographical Sketches of American 
Statesmen, Speeches, Addresses and Letters. Intro¬ 
duction by Senator Wade Hampton. Philadelphia, 
1887. 

-. Reminiscences and Speeches. 1889. 

-. Letters to His Wife. Arranged by H. McC. 

Perry. 1889. 







Bibliography 


377 


Phillips, U. B. Correspondence of Robert Toombs, A. H. 
Stephens, and Howell Cobb. American Historical 
Association Report, 1911, Vol. II. 

Poore, B. P. Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial 
Charters and Other Organic Laws of the United 
States. Washington, 1877. 

Register of Debates in Congress. Vol. I, 18th Cong., 
2d Sess., 1824-25, to Vol. XII, 24th Cong., 1st. 
Sess., 1835-36. 

Richardson, James D. Messages and Papers of the 
Presidents. Vols. II and III. Washington, 1896. 

South Carolina Assembly Acts. 1827 to 1838 inclusive, 
except for 1834. 

South Carolina Assembly Journals. 1831 to 1838 inclu¬ 
sive, except for 1834. 

South Carolina Legislature Reports and Resolutions, 
1827 to 1838 inclusive, with the exception of 1834, 
bound with the Acts of the Legislature. 1840 bound 
with the Journals. 

State Rights and Free Trade Almanac for 1831 and 1832. 
Published by the State Rights and Free Trade Asso¬ 
ciation. Printed by A. E. Miller, 4 Broad Street, 
Charleston, South Carolina. 

Webster, Daniel. Private Correspondence. Edited by 
C. H. Van Tyne. New York, 1902. 

-. Writings and Speeches. Boston, 1903. 



378 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 
SECONDARY WORKS 

Ambler, Charles H. Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 
to 1861. Chicago, 1910. 

-. Thomas Ritchie. Richmond, 1913. 

Bassett, J. S. Andrew Jackson. New York, 1911. 
Benton, Thomas Hart. Thirty Years’ View (1820-1850). 
New York, 1854-56. 

Bernheim, G. D. History of the German Settlements and 
of the Lutheran Church in North and South Carolina. 
Philadelphia, 1872. 

Burgess, J. W. The Middle Period, 1817-1858. New 
York, 1897. 

-. Political Science and Comparative Constitu¬ 
tional Law. Boston, 1890. 

Capers, H. D. Life and Times of C. G. Memminger. 
Richmond, 1893. 

Carwile, J. B. Reminiscences of Newberry. 1890. 
Chapman, John A. History of Edgefield County. New¬ 
berry, 1897. 

Chreitzberg, Rev. A. M. Early Methodism in the 
Carolinas. 1897. 

Cooley, Thomas M. Constitutional Law. Edited by 
A. C. Angell. Boston, 1891. 

-. Constitutional Limitations. Edited by A. C. 

Angell. Boston, 1890. 

Curtis, G. T. Daniel Webster. New York, 1870. 

-. Constitutional History of the United States. 

New York, 1899. 






Bibliography 379 

Dewey, D. R. Financial History of the United States. 
New York, 1903. 

Dodd, William E. Statesmen of the Old South. New 
York, 1911. 

-. Expansion and Conflict. Boston, 1915. 

DuBose, John W. Life and Times of William Lowndes 
Yancey. Birmingham, 1892. 

Elliott, Hon. William. Carolina Sports. Charleston, 
1846. 

Garner, J. W. Introduction to Political Science. New 
York, 1910. 

Goss, J. D. History of Tariff Administration in the 
United States. New York, 1891. 

Grayson, William J. Biographical Sketch of James 
Louis Petigru. New York, 1866. 

Griffith, H. P. Life and Times of Rev. John G. Landrum. 
1885. 

Harris, C. W. The Sectional Struggle. Philadelphia, 
1902. 

Holst, Hermann Eduard von. John C. Calhoun. Bos¬ 
ton, 1892. 

- . Constitutional and Political History of the 

United States. Chicago, 1877-89. 

Houston, D. F. A Critical Study of Nullification in 
South Carolina. New York, 1896. 

Howe, George, D.D. History of the Presbyterian Church 
in South Carolina. Columbia, 1883. 

Hunt, Gaillard. John C. Calhoun. Philadelphia, 1908. 




380 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

In Memoriam. B. F. Perry. 1887. 

Jenkins, John Stillwell. The Life of John C. Calhoun. 
Buffalo, 1857. 

Jervey, Theodore D. Robert Y. Hayne and His Times. 
New York, 1909. 

Johnston, Alexander, and Woodburn, J. A. American 
Political History. New York, 1905. 

Kirkland, T. J., and Kennedy, R. M. Historic Camden. 
Columbia, 1905. 

Laborde, Maximilian. History of South Carolina Col¬ 
lege, 1801-1857. Columbia, 1859. 

Lalor, John J. Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political 
Economy, and Political History of the United States. 
Chicago, 1883-84. 

Landrum, Dr. J. B. O. History of Spartanburg County. 
Atlanta, 1900. 

Lodge, H. C. Daniel Webster. Boston, 1883. 

Loring, C. W. Nullification, and Secession. New York, 
1893. 

McCall, S. W. Daniel Webster. Boston, 1902. 

McCrady, Edward. History of South Carolina under the 
Proprietary Government, 1670-1719. History of 
South Carolina under the Royal Government, 1719- 
1776. History of South Carolina in the Revolution, 
i 775- i 78o. History of South Carolina in the 
Revolution, 1780-1783. New York, 1897-1902. 

MacDonald, William. Jacksonian Democracy. New 
York, 1906. 


Bibliography 381 

McGill, Samuel D. Narrative of Reminiscences in 
Williamsburg County. 1897. 

McLaughlin, A. C. The Courts, the Constitution, and 
Parties. Chicago, 1912. 

McMaster, J. B. History of the People of the United 
States from the Revolution to the Civil War. New 
York, 1883-1913. 

-. Daniel Webster. New York, 1902. 

Magruder, A. B. John Marshall. Boston, 1895. 

Merriam, C. E. ‘‘The Political Theory of Calhoun,” 
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. VII. 

-. American Political Theories. New York, 1903. 

Mills, Robert. Atlas of the State of South Carolina, 
Made under the Authority of the Legislature. About 
1830. 

-. Statistics of South Carolina, Including a View 

of Its Natural, Civil, and Military History. Charles¬ 
ton, 1826. 

Morse, J. T. Thomas Jefferson. Boston, 1891. 

O’Neall, J. B. Bench and Bar of South Carolina. 
Charleston, 1859. 

O’Neall, J. B., and Chapman, J. A. Annals of Newberry. 
Newberry, 1892. 

Parton, James. Andrew Jackson. New York, 1893. 
Peck, C. H. The Jacksonian Epoch. New York, 1899. 

Pinckney, Gustavus M. Life of John C. Calhoun. 
Charleston, 1903. 





382 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 

Phillips, U. B. Georgia and State Rights. Washington, 
1902. 

-. History of Transportation in the Eastern Cotton 

Belt to i860. New York, 1908. 

-. “The South Carolina Federalists,” American 

Historical Review, Vol. XIV. 

Ramsay, David. History of South Carolina from Its 
First Settlement in 1670 to the Year 1808. Charles¬ 
ton, 1809. 

Roosevelt, Theodore. Thomas H. Benton. Boston, 
1886. 

Salley, A. S. Calhoun Family of South Carolina. 
Columbia, 1906. 

Schaper, William A. Sectionalism and Representation 
in South Carolina, American Historical Association 
Report, 1900, Vol. I. 

Schouler, James. History of the United States under the 
Constitution. New York, 1894-1914. 

-. Constitutional Studies, State and Federal. 

New York, 1897. 

Schurz, Carl. Henry Clay. Boston, 1892. 

Sellers, W. W. History of Marion County. Columbia, 
1902. 

Simms, William Gilmore. History of South Carolina. 
Charleston, 1840. 

-. Geography of South Carolina. Charleston, 

1843. 






Bibliography 383 

Southern Historical Association Publications. Articles 
in Vols. II and VII. 

Stanwood, Edward. A History of the Presidency. 
Boston, 1912. 

-. American Tariff Controversies in the 19th 

Century. Boston, 1903-4. 

Stille, C. J. Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett. 
Philadelphia, 1888. 

Sumner, W. G. Andrew Jackson. Boston, 1897. 
Taussig, F. W. The Tariff History of the United States. 
New York, 1914. 

Thomas, Rev. J. A. W. A History of Marlboro County. 
1897. 

Trent, William P. Southern Statesmen of the Old 
Regime. New York, 1897. 

Turner, F. J. Rise of the New West. New York, 1906. 
Warfield, E. D. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. 
New York, 1887. 

Wightman, William M. Life of William Capers, D.D. 
Nashville, 1858. 

Willoughby, W. W. The Nature of the State. New 
York, 1896. 

-. Constitutional Law of the United States. New 

York, 1910. 

Wilson, Woodrow. The State. Boston, 1898. 

Wise, Barton H. Life of Henry A. Wise. New York, 
1899. 









































INDEX 


Abbeville district: anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, n, n n.; 
and disunion, 17; test oath 
opposed by, 327, 342. 

Adams, John Quincy, President, 
99, 117 n.; anti-tariffites 

censured by administration 
organs, 12; opposed by Mer¬ 
cury, 31; supported by Courier 
and Gazette, 31; tariff bill, 
168, 170. 

Administration, the. See Adams, 
John Quincy; Jackson, Andrew. 

Agriculture: tariff, effects of, on, 
12 n., 29; improvements of, 22. 

Aiken, William, 157. 

Alabama, 202, 203 n.; and nulli¬ 
fication, 226. 

Alien and Sedition laws, con¬ 
stitutionality of, 135, 305. 

Allegiance: to state, 178, 183, 
211, 293, 307, 316, 320-22, 
3 2 4, 346, 359, 3 6i 5 t0 nation, 
178, 183, 212, 229, 316, 318, 
3i9, 321, 330, 350, 357-62; 
paramount, 295-300, 321, 340, 
340 n., 360. 

American Colonization Society, 
4 n. 

American System, 85, 113, 125, 
158, 168. 

Anderson district, opposition of, 
to test oath, 327. 

Anti-Conventionists: campaign 
of, 94, 95; inclusion of pro¬ 
tariff men by, 95; fears of, 
95-97; accused of tariff lean¬ 
ings, in; power felt, 90 n.; 


anti-tariff men among, 96; 
in legislature of 1830, 103-10. 

Anti-nationalism in South Caro¬ 
lina in 1825, 1. 

“Anti-Nullification,” views of, 
on the advocates of nullifi¬ 
cation, 84. 

Anti-tariff arguments. See Tariff. 

Articles of Confederation, 69, 70, 
73- 

Baltimore Democratic conven¬ 
tion, 160, 228. 

Bank, United States, 303; reso¬ 
lutions against, in 1825, 1; 
legislature of 1824 on, 35; 
constitutionality of, 135. 

Barnwell district: anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, 11 n.; 
military preparations, 269, 
276; mediation by Virginia, 
opposed by, 274. 

Barnwell, R. W., Congressman, 
170 n. 

Bay, Judge E. H., on test oath, 
333 - 

Beacon, The Camden, attacks of, 
upon Submissionists, 149. 

Beaufort, South Carolina, col¬ 
lector of, warned, 231. 

Bennett, Governor, Union lead¬ 
er, 134 

Blair, James, Congressman, ad¬ 
vocate of moderation, 60; on 
a convention, no; on the 
tariff, 166, 169, 172; co¬ 

operation favored by, 197; 
denounced by Nullifiers, 310; 


386 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


elected in 1833, 314; removed 
from militia office by test 
oath, 323. 

Breathitt, George, military spy 
for Jackson, 230, 231. 

“Brutus.” See Turnbull, Rob¬ 
ert J. 

Butler, A. P., convention favored 
by, 104 n. 

Butler, S. H., State Rights 
leader, 277. 

Bynum, Alfred, speech of, 
against disunion, 16. 

Calhoun, John C., 171, 303, 304; 
on danger of tariff legislation, 
4, 5; disunion leader, 23, 174; 
author of the Exposition of 
1828, 36; not an early leader, 
85; and Jackson, 118, 151, 
152; action of South Caro¬ 
lina, desired by, 119, 165; 
public letter of, in July, 1831, 
122; authority of, questioned, 
128; State Rights leader, 133, 
225, 270, 309; answered, 136, 
181, 182, 312; his “Expose” 
of July, 1831, 138; public 
letter of, in August, 1832, 179; 
and secession, 233; and poli¬ 
tics, 118, 260; on tariff of 
1833, 263; on test oath, 338. 

Cambreleng, C. C., of New York, 
on Jackson’s proclamation, 242. 

“Carolinadoctrines,”61,65; hi, 
123. See also Nullification. 

Carolinian, The Edgefield, 313; 
too nationalistic, 38; “Hamp¬ 
den” articles in, 54. 

Castle Pinckney, military im¬ 
portance of, 234, 257. 

Charleston, South Carolina, 98; 
Jackson supported by, in 1828, 
32; business conditions in, 84; 
city elections in, in 1830, 98, 


99; State Rights association in, 
124; city elections in, in 1831, 
155,156; and the tariff, 96, 99; 
city election in, in 1832, 203; 
sectional objection, to a con¬ 
vention, 88; and a convention, 
93, 99, 210; United States 
army, preparations in, 230, 
231, 234, 284; military head¬ 
quarters of State Rights men 
in, 251, 280, 284, 306; State 
Rights meeting in, of January, 
1833, 272; city elections in, in 
1833, 314; and the test oath, 
318, 331; Union center in, 
282 n. 

Chesnut, Colonel James, and 
manufacturing, 132 n. 

Chester district: Union organ¬ 
ization in, 282 n.; anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, n n.; 
test oath opposed by, 327. 

Cheves, Langdon: southern co¬ 
operation advocated by, 63,64, 
92, 93, 199, 200; on a state 
convention, 96. 

Cincinnati Society of Charles¬ 
ton, 147, 196. 

Clay, Henry, 86, 99, 153, 159, 
174, 3°3> an< l the tariff, 164, 
165, 197, 287, 291; and poli¬ 
tics, 260, 261. 

Colleton district: and disunion, 
17; meeting in, of June, 1828, 
19; asked to pause, 20; Jack- 
son opposed by, 150. See 
also Walterborough. 

Columbia, South Carolina, 97, 
100, 293; State Rights meet¬ 
ing in, September, 1830, 93; 
States Rights convention in, 
December, 1831, 124, 125; 
and the proclamation, 243. 

Commerce: effects of tariff on, 
12 n.; development of, 84, 


Index 


387 


191 n.; nullification contro¬ 
versy, effects of, on, 191. 

Congress: and tariff of 1828, 6, 
9; and the Constitution, 3, 
33 > I 3 S> and the Supreme 
Court, 71; and nullification 
62, 235, 249, 258, 259, 262- 
66, 273; hope in, in 1828, 37, 
and in 1829, 40, 41, 45, 46; 
and tariff of 1830, 48, 49, 50, 
53; and a state convention, 
94; and tariff in 1831, 109-11, 
119, 127, 158; hope in, in 
1831-32, 158, 159, 164, 213; 
and tariff of 1832, 165-69, 170, 
208; and tariff of 1833, 210, 
240, 261-66, 271, 272, 286, 
287. 

Congressmen of South Carolina: 
tariff of 1828, opposed by, 6; 
on internal improvements, 30, 
50 n.; governor and corre¬ 
spondence between, 45; tariff 
reduction favored by, 46, 109, 
no, 166, 170; election of, 101, 
102 n.; lose hope in Con¬ 
gress, 170; answered by Union¬ 
ists, 171. 

Connecticut, and nullification, 
176 n. 

Consolidation, extremely cen¬ 
tralized general government. 
See Federal government. 

Constitution, state: and nulli¬ 
fication, 244, 247; and the 
test oath, 317-19, 326, 328, 
335 , 338 , 339 , 345 , 346 , 353 - 57 - 

Constitution, United States: and 
nullification, 55, 57, 58, 63, 65, 
72, 175, 179, 185, 237; and 
a southern convention, 198, 
199; broad-constructionists, 3, 
4, 7, 33; violations of, 32, 49, 
135; amendment to, sug¬ 
gested, 58; Unionist view of, 


68-80, 95, 117, 128-49, 113 n., 
179-81, 184, 211, 243, 296, 
297 , 321, 340 n., 346, 347, 35 °, 
357-59; State Rights view of, 
104-6, 214, 216, 346, 347; 
Jackson’s view of, 257, 258. 

Convention, federal, as part of 
nullification process, 73, 75, 
77 - 

Convention party. See State 
Rights party. 

Convention, southern: advo¬ 
cated, 197-202; opposed, 198. 
Convention, state: proposed, 
88,90,195,158,197, 208; pow¬ 
ers of, 88, 89, 184, 325, 3355 
fears of, 90, 91; and nullifica¬ 
tion, 93, 195; an issue in 1830, 
98-104, 127; in 1832, 195, 206; 
called in 1832, 209, 210, 212- 
18; reassembled in 1833, 287- 
93, 295, 312. See also Anti- 
Conventionists; Convention- 
ists. 

Conventionists: program of, 

feared, 90, 91; campaign of 
education of, 91, 91 n.; meet¬ 
ing of, in September, 1830, 
92; not agreed on program, 
93, 94; in legislature of 1830, 
103-xo, and in 1831, 158. 
See a/soNulli tiers; State Rights 
party. 

Cooper, Dr. Thomas: president 
of South Carolina College, 
171; nullification leader, 83, 
107; calculation of “value of 
the union” recommended by, 
3 , 39 - . 

Co-operation, of whole South, 
advocated, 7, 48, 92-94, 197- 
203, 304. 

Correspondence committees, ap¬ 
pointed in Edgefield in 1828, 

23- 


388 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


Courier, The Charleston: dis¬ 
union talk in 1828 denounced 
by, 14, 17; pro-tariff articles 
in, 30; Adams, supported by, 
31; accused of tariff support, 
50; nullification opposed by, 
83, 146; on Jackson’s toast, 
87; on a convention, 100; 
Calhoun’s position, accounted 
for, by, 181,182. 

Courts, state: court of appeals, 
Union majority in, 208, 334, 
335; and nullification, 214, 
215, 219-24, 245; on the test 
oath, 333 - 39 , 344 -. 

Creswell, Mr., Union leader, 
203 n. 

Crisis, The, Pickens’ opinion of, 
61 n. See also Turnbull, 
Robert J. 

Cunningham, Richard: State 
Rights candidate, 101; Union 
leader, 246, 295, 342, 344. 

Daniels, C. F., editor of Cam¬ 
den Journal, fight of, with 
J. H. Hammond, 132. 

Darlington district: anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, n n.; 
South Carolina Manufactur¬ 
ing Company of, 21; test 
oath, opposed by, 327. 

Davis, Warren R., 170 n., 176; 
candidate for Congress, 90 n.; 
public letter of, 109; Phila¬ 
delphia anti-tariff meeting, 
promoted by, 113; death of, 

364. 

Desaussure, Chancellor, Union 
leader, 134. 

Dew, Professor Thomas R., 
memorial of, on tariff, 165. 

Disunion: hints at, 3, 13, 14, 
25, 33; an issue, 15; D. R. 
Williams on, 18, 19; Mer¬ 


cury accused of, 23, 24, 25; 
Telescope on, 38; and nullifi¬ 
cation, 58, 59, 237, 286; de¬ 
nounced, 14, 16, 17, 19, 27, 
80; a last resort, 55; and a 
convention ( see Convention); 
less agitation concerning, in 
1829, 39, 40; fear of, in 1830, 
56, 100; advocates of, 83, 
84, 85; renounced by State 
Rights men, 99; more openly 
discussed, 173; party in the 
North, 264. See also Seces¬ 
sion. 

Disunion party: Disunionists 
not organized in 1828, 13; 
denounced, 26; campaign of 
education by, 64. See also 
State Rights party. 

Drayton, Colonel William: pub¬ 
lic dinner for, 62; Union 
leader, 98, 127, 134, 231, 281, 
310; on internal improve¬ 
ments, 50 n.; on nullification, 
62, 96, 262; candidate for 
Congress, 101; on the tariff, 
6, 117, 166, 169, 172; Vir¬ 
ginia and Kentucky resolu¬ 
tions, interpreted by, 139; 
Exposition answered by, 140; 
and tariff reduction in 1833, 
262, 266. 

Dunkin, B. F., convention fa¬ 
vored by, 104 n. 

Edgefield district, meeting in, 
in July, 1828, 23. 

Elections: Charleston city, 1830, 
98-100; state, 1830, 100-103; 
Charleston city, in 1831, 155, 
156; Charleston city, in 1832, 
203-5; election abuses, 205, 
351,352m; Charleston city, in 
1833,314; congressional, 1833, 
314; state, 1834, 346 - 48 , 3S 2 ; 


Index 389 


Charleston city, in 1834, 351. 
See also AntUConventionists; 
Conventionists; State Rights 
party; Union party. 

England, 121 n., 188; supposed 
to favor Nullifiers, 280. 

English, Thomas, convention, 
favored by, 104 n. 

Enquirer, The Richmond : Colle¬ 
ton asked to go slower by, 20; 
and nullification, 225. 

“Expose” by Calhoun, July, 
1831, 138. See also Calhoun. 

Exposition, the South Carolina, 
of 1828, by Calhoun, 5, 53, 
71; answered, 42, 140; printed 
by legislature in 1828, 36; re¬ 
stated by Calhoun in 1831,122. 

Federal government: prospect 
of clash with, 2, 6, 9, 18, 96, 
122, 166, 173,324; Union view 
of, 68-80; State Rights view 
of, 104-6; a consolidated 
government, 69, 238, 267, 304, 
346-48; military preparations 
for coercion by, 215, 217, 223, 
226, 229, 233, 234, 237, 241, 
259, 270, 271. See also Con¬ 
stitution. 

Federal party, 149; principles of, 
3 ° 5 - 

Felder, J. M., Congressman, 
170 n., 171. 

Florida, Jackson in, 152. 

Floyd, of Virginia, supported for 
President, 229. 

Force bill: Wilkins’ bill, intro¬ 
duced, 276; opposed in South 
Carolina, 277, 287, 288, 304; 
nullified, 289, 292; wisdom of, 
doubted, 306; defended, 312. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 128. 

Free Press and Hive, The Colum¬ 
bia, nullification opposed by, 


131; Calhoun answered by, 
138. 

Free Trade and State Rights 
associations. See State Rights 
party. 

Gazette, T he Charleston City: 
disunion opposed by, in 1828, 
15, 16, 26, 81; Mercury, 

accused by, 24; Adams, sup¬ 
ported by, 31; nullification, 
opposed by, 83, 129, 146; on 
the tariff, 167, 171. 

Georgetown, South Carolina, 
collector of, warned, 231. 

Georgia: and nullification, 120, 
130, 176 n., 227, 262, 202, 
203 n.; tariff, position of con¬ 
gressmen of, on, 166, 286. 

Germans, on nullification, 120 n. 

Giles, William B., anti-national¬ 
ist, 1. 

Governor, the, of South Caro¬ 
lina: asked to call legislature 
or convention in 1828, 19; 
asked to agree with congress¬ 
men on plan of action, 45; 
message of, of 1831, 159; of 
1832, 218, 219. See also 

Hamilton, James, Jr.; Hayne, 
Robert Y. 

Greenville, district and city: 
anti-tariff meeting in, in 1828, 
11 n.; withdrawal of conven¬ 
tion advocates in, 89; test 
oath, opposition of, to, 326-31, 
333 , 36 3 , 364; a strong Union 
center, 282 n. 

Griffin, J. K., Congressman, 
170 n. 

“Hamilton,” The Crisis, an¬ 
swered by, 14. 

Hamilton, James, Jr., Governor, 
179; nullification proposed by, 


390 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


33; on the tariff, 52; advo¬ 
cate of nullification, 63, 173; 
party ball for, 123; disunion 
leader, 23; authority of, ques¬ 
tioned, 128; State Rights 
leader, 133, 225, 270, 272; 
legislature in extra session, 
called by, 1832, 208; conven¬ 
tion, recalled by, 287, 289; on 
test oath, 338. 

Hammond, James H., editor of 
Columbia Southern Times: 
fight of, with Daniels, 132; 
speech of, on July 4, 1829, 
37 n.; on disunion, 55; medi¬ 
ation by Virginia, opposed by, 
274; military organizer, 249, 
269, 276, 277, 279. 

“Hampden” (Francis W. Pick¬ 
ens), articles on nullification 
by, 53 - 

Hanlon, James O., Union sup¬ 
porter, 246. 

Harper, Chancellor William: 
speech at Columbia, 1828, 17; 
state convention, advocated by, 
93-96; in legislature of 1828, 
35; messenger to Congress, 
162; memorial of, on tariff, 
164; nullification ordinance, 
author of, 214; State Rights 
leader, 311; on test oath, 335, 
34 °. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, tariff 
meeting of manufacturers in, 5. 

Hartford Convention, 74, 129. 

Hayne, Robert Y.: debate of, 
with Webster, 49, 64, 65; on 
internal improvements, 52 n.; 
congressman, 170 n.; pub¬ 
lic dinner for, 62; authority 
of, questioned, 128; State 
Rights leader, 133, 270, 309, 
311, 302; convention report, 
written by, 213; counter¬ 


proclamation of, as governor, 
243, 244, 248; commander- 
in-chief of State Rights forces, 
249-54, 279; convention, pre¬ 
sided over by, in March, 1833, 
289-93; on test oath, 337, 
338 , 345 - 

Hayne, William E., assistant 
adjutant inspector-general, 
268. 

Henry, Professor, on the Union, 
17, 18. 

Hill, W. R., a convention, sup¬ 
ported by,104 n. 

Hive, The Edgefield, boycotted 
by Disunionists, 26. 

Holmes, I. E., 123. 

Holy Alliance, 121 n. 

“Homespun,” manufacturing, 
recommended by, 21. 

Horry district: a Union center, 
282; test oath opposed by, 327. 

House of Representatives of 
South Carolina Assembly. See 
Legislature of South Carolina 
and maps in the text. 

Huger, Alfred, a convention 
advocated by 104 n. 

Huger, Judge Daniel E., 203; 
Union leader, 134, 159, 295; 
consumption of northern prod¬ 
ucts opposed by, 2; a con¬ 
vention opposed by, 104 n.; 
amendment to test oath of¬ 
fered by, 321. 

Hunt, Colonel B. F., and test 
oath, 334. 

Intelligencer, T he W inyaw, against 
too advanced position in 1828, 
20. 

Interior, the. See Up-country 
districts. 

Internal improvements, 164; 
resolutions against, in 1825, 1; 


Index 


39 i 


constitutionality of, 4, 136; 
advocates of, 30, 50; legis¬ 
lature of 1824 on, 35. 

Jackson, Andrew: his party 
accused of disunion designs, 
I 3> 31; South Carolina car¬ 
ried by, in 1828, 32; thought 
to support nullification, 65, 
86, 150; toast of, to Federal 
Union, 86, 87; and Calhoun, 
ri8, 119, 151, 152; and nulli¬ 
fication, 223, 226, 228-43, 

255-60, 269,270, 281-85, 303, 
304; administration of, con¬ 
sidered weak in 1830, 56; no 
hope in, 91; name of, dropped 
by State Rights party, 112; 
and internal improvements, 
137; letter of, June 14, 1831, 
149, 160; nullification doc¬ 
trine opposed by, 150-53, 
303, 304; caucus of support¬ 
ers of, 159, 160; caucus of 
opponents of, 159, 160; nulli¬ 
fication proclamation of, 225, 
235-43, 248, 253, 267, 303; 
message of, on tariff praised 
by Nullifiers, 237, and de¬ 
nounced by Nullifiers, 272, 
307, 310: message of, of Jan¬ 
uary 16, 1833, 213 n., 273; 
and the force bill, 305, 306. 

Jefferson, Thomas, 1x7 n., 128; 
quoted by Telescope, 38; on 
nullification, 176. 

Johnson, Judge David, Union 
leader, 134. 

Johnson, Judge Joseph, Union 
leader, 98, 203; on test oath, 
335 - 37 , 340 . 

Johnson, Judge William, Union 
leader, 134. 

Journal, The Camden, 102, 132; 
nullification opposed by, 83; 


a convention opposed by, 95 n.; 
McDuffie, answered by, 137; 
Legare, defended by, 149. 

Judges, state. See Courts, state. 

Judiciary, federal. See Supreme 
Court of United States. 

Kendall, Amos, on nullification 
and politics, 259. 

Kentucky: resolutions of, in 
1798, 33, 139, 176, 2x4; pro¬ 
posal of, to stop purchase of 
stock of, 2, 3, 21; and nulli¬ 
fication, 176 n. 

Kershaw district in 1828, 18. 

King, Mr., Union leader, 203 n. 

Landrum, Dr. A., editor of the 
Edgefield Hive, 26. 

Laurens district, test oath, oppo¬ 
sition of, to, 327. 

Lee, Judge, Union leader, 134. 

Lee, of Massachusetts, suported 
for Vice-President, 229. 

Legar6, Hugh S.: in legislature 
of 1828, 35; Union leader, 134; 
accused of tariff support, 149. 

Legislature of South Carolina: 
anti-nationalistic resolutions 
of, in 1825, 1, and in 1827, 4; 
Exposition for, written by 
Calhoun, 5; looked to for 
action in 1828, 7, 11, 18, 27, 
34; of 1828, 35, 37; of 1829, 
40, 41, 44, 45; and a con¬ 
vention, 88, 89; of 1830, 103- 
10, 127; of 1831, 158; extra 
session of, in 1832, 208, 209; 
regular session of, in 1832, 
nullification legislation by, 
214, 215, 218-24, 243, 255, 
256; given power to act on 
test oath, 299, 300, 316, 317, 
325; of 1833, test oath legis¬ 
lation by, 317-22, 336; of 


392 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


1834, test oath legislation by, 
337-39.35i-6i. 

Leigh, Benjamin W., agent of 
Virginia to South Carolina, 
273,.287. 

“Leonidas” on the tariff, 9. 

Lexington district, anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, n n. 

Livingston, Edward, Secretary 
of State, 242 n. 

Louisiana, purchase of, 135. 

Low-country districts: coastal 
parishes, effect of tariff on, 
149; and test oath, 328. 

“Lowndes” on the legislature 
of 1829, 40. 

McCrady, Edward, on the test 
oath, 334. 

McDuffie, George: in Congress, 
46, 170 n.; on the tariff, 116, 
170; answered, 116, 117, 136, 
137, 172; northern manufac¬ 
tures, opposed by, 2; and 
broad-construction, 3; state 
excise on northern goods urged 
by, 21; disunion leader, 23, 
173; authority of, questioned, 
128; State Rights leader, 133, 
311; convention address writ¬ 
ten by, 216; on test oath, 338; 
elected governor, 361. 

McLane, Louis, Secretary of 
Treasury, tariff bill, 166. 

McWillie, William, a convention, 
opposed by, 104 n. 

Madison, James, 117 n., 128; 
on nullification, 140, 176. 

Mallory tariff bill, 47, 48, no. 

Manning, Richard I., Union 
leader, 134, 295. 

Manufactures, northern: pro¬ 
posal to stop purchase of, 2, 
n; Harrisburg meeting, 5; 
and the tariff, 6, 47, 52, no. 


See also Non-consumption of 
northern products. 

Manufactures, southern: urged, 
21; opposed, 131, 132. 

Massachusetts: and nullifica¬ 
tion, 176 n.; oath of allegi¬ 
ance to, 296, 297. 

Mazyck, Alexander, 123. 

Mercury, The Charleston, 101, 
146, 147, 313, 327; on south¬ 
ern exhaustion by tariff, 12; 
on the presidential campaign, 
n; Colleton stand approved 
by, 19, 20; non-consumption 
opposed by, 21; “Junto” of, 
accused of disunion propa¬ 
ganda, 23-26; Jackson, 
praised by, 31, 65; disunion 
charges denied by, 32; The 
Crisis essays, published by, 4; 
on tariff of 1828, 6; moderate 
position of, in 1828, 7; pro¬ 
tariff articles answered by, 29; 
on Jackson’s toast, 87; on a 
convention, 100; on tariff of 
1832, 170; on test oath, 296, 
327, 333 - 

Messenger, The Pendleton: open- 
minded, 82; Calhoun’s “Ex¬ 
pose” printed by, in July, 
1831, 138. 

Middleton, Governor, 203 n. 

Military preparations. See Fed¬ 
eral government; State Rights 
party; Union party. 

Militia, state: and nullification, 
251, 282; militia law or “mili¬ 
tary bill,” 306, 307, 317, 320, 
322-24, 327-38, 344, 364. 

Miller, Stephen D., advocate of 
moderation, 60, 170 n. 

Minute Men. See State Rights 
party ( s.v . military prepara¬ 
tions of). 

Mississippi, 202, 203 n. 


Index 


393 


Mitchell, Thomas R., Congress¬ 
man: on the tariff, 166, 169, 
172; denounced by Nullifiers, 
310- 

Monroe, James, 117 n. 

Mountaineer, The Greenville: on 
Jackson’s toast, 87; nulli¬ 
fication opposed by, 133; 
legislative action of 1828 in¬ 
dorsed by, 40; and conven¬ 
tion of 1832, 209, 210; on test 
oath, 360, 361. 

National Intelligencer: Jackson’s 
toast interpreted by, 187; 
Adams administration presses 
led by, 12, 13; and the Union¬ 
ists, 348. 

National Republicans, 260. 

“Native, A,” pro-tariff argu¬ 
ment of, 27, 28. 

Newberry district, anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, n n. 

New England: and nullification, 
75 n.; and the tariff, 117 n., 
149, 270; and War of 1812, 
74; and secession, 270. 

New York: protectionist con¬ 
vention in, 164; and nulli¬ 
fication, 227, 241; and politics, 
261; congressmen of, on the 
tariff, 286. 

Niles' Register, read in South 
Carolina, 96. 

Non-consumption of northern 
products. See Non-intercourse 
with the North. 

Non-convention party. See Anti- 
Conventionists. 

Non-intercourse with the North: 
approved, n, 19, 20, 21, 40; 
opposed, 11, 19, 22, 23. 

North, the: opposition to, 2, 3, 
291; blamed for disunion, 32; 
and the tariff, 37, 48, no, 


113; the South ridiculed by, 
9; and southern disunion 
talk, 31, 63 n.; nullification 
indorsed by, 65; warned by 
Unionists, 80, 90; warned by 
State Rights men, 217. 

North Carolina, and nullification, 
120,241,262, 202, 203 n. 

Nuckolls, William T., Congress¬ 
man, 170 n, 171; on a con¬ 
vention, no. 

Nullification: doctrine and prac¬ 
tice, not generally discussed 
in 1828, 20; advocated, 33, 
61, 62, 65, 98, 121 n., 128-49, 
164; denounced, 60, 62, 67- 
80, 83, 97, 98, 121 n., 127, 
128-49, 156, 172-91, 202, 

212, 247, 313; brought to 
prominence by J. Hamilton, 
Jr., 1828, 33; in the Expo¬ 
sition, 36; suffered from dis¬ 
union stigma, 53, 57; campaign 
of education for, 53, 60; rela¬ 
tion of secession to, 56, 57, 59, 
78, 88, 223, 286; spread of, 
over the Union, 66; and a 
convention, 93, 94, 96; in 
legislature of 1830, 103-10; 
lull in advocacy of, in 1831, 
108, 109; in other southern 
states, 120, 130, 224, 284, 285; 
new campaign for, in 1831, 
121; in Washington, 130; 
in legislature of 1831, 161, 
162; new campaign for, in 
1832, 164, 172, 195; not a 
peaceful remedy, 173, 174, 
239, 2 73, 2 94; in operation, 
33, 34, .186, 187, 216, 219-24; 
in election of 1832, 206; ordi¬ 
nance of, 214, 215; and the 
political situation, 259; sus¬ 
pended, 1833, 272-76, 289; 
efficacy of, 291, 302, 303, 313. 


394 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


Nullification party. See State 
Rights party. 

Nullifiers. See State Rights 
party. 

Ohio: and nullification, 176 n.; 
tariff, position of congress¬ 
men of, on, 286. 

“One of the People,” disunion 
opposed by, in 1828, 17; on 
internal improvements, 30. 

O’Neall, Judge J. B., 203 n.; 
Union leader, 134; on test 
oath, 33s, 336,337, 340. _ 

Orangeburg district, anti-tariff 
meeting in, in 1828, xi n. 

Ordinance of nullification. See 
Nullification. 

Palmetto, emblem of South Car¬ 
olina, 123,323. 

Parishes, defined, 10 n. See 
also Low-country districts. 

Patriot, The Charleston Southern: 
nullification opposed by, 83; 
146, 313; on the tariff, 114, 
116, 117, 144-, 

Pendleton, district, 125 n.; anti¬ 
tariff meeting in, in 1828,11 n.; 
and test oath, 349, 364. 

Pennsylvania: and nullification, 
241, 176 n.; tariff, position of 
congressmen of, on 286. 

Perry, Benjamin F., Union 
party leader, 67. 

Petrigru, James L., Union lead¬ 
er, 98, 134, 159. 295, 101. 

Philadelphia anti-tariff conven¬ 
tion, September, 1831, 112, 
113, 124, 155, 162, 164. 

Pickens district, test oath, oppo¬ 
sition of, to, 327. 

Pickens, Francis W.: author of 
“Hampden” articles, 53-56; 
use of pamphlets advocated 


by, 60; convention favored 
by, 104 n. 

Pinckney, Henry L.: advocate 
of nullification, 63, 173; State 
Rights candidate, 99, 315; 
convention favored by, 104 n. 

Player, T. T., 104 n. 

Poinsett, Joel R.: Union party 
leader, 97, 127, 134, 231, 246, 
282,295; work of, with Jackson, 
229,233,271; and testoath,331. 

Post, The Charleston Stale Rights 
and Free Trode Evening, a 
nullification paper, 121 n. 

President. See Adams, John 
Quincy; Jackson, Andrew. 

Pressley, J. J., convention op¬ 
posed by, 104 n. 

Preston, John, and manufactur¬ 
ing, 131. 132- 

Preston, William C.: speech of, 
at Columbia, 1828, 17; Cal¬ 
houn asked to write report for 
legislature by, 36; convention 
supported by, 104 n.; candi¬ 
date, 132; State Rights lead¬ 
er, 277; on test oath, 338. 

Pringle, James R.: Union leader, 
98; candidate, 99. 

Prioleau, Judge Samuel, in legis¬ 
lature of 1824, 34. 

Radical, The Cheraw, Professor 
Henry defended by, 18. 

Replevin act, to carry nullifi¬ 
cation into effect, 219-23. 

Republican party : remnants of, 
242; principles of, 305. 

Revolution, and nullification, 
78, 79, 135, 140, 262. 

Revolutionary Society of 
Charleston, 147, 196, 345. _ 

Revolutionary War: conditions 
during, 69, 73; pensions from, 
165; veterans of, 218. 


Index 


395 


Rhett, Robert Barnwell: re¬ 
sistance favored by, 93; ad¬ 
dress of, on July 4, 1832, 174. 

Rhode Island, 74. 

Richardson, Judge J. P.: nulli¬ 
fication opposed by, 93; con¬ 
vention opposed by, 104 n.; 
Union leader, r34, 203 n. 

Richland district, and disunion, 

Ritchie, Thomas: on strict con¬ 
struction, 1; on nullification, 
. 225 - 

Rives, W. C., of Virginia, sup¬ 
porter of Jackson, 239. 

Rogers, James, Union general 
removed by test oath, 323. 

St. James’, Goosecreek, parish, 
anti-tariff meeting in, 11 n. 

St. Philip’s, and St. Michael’s 
parish, 100. 

“Sale day,” importance of po¬ 
litically, 10. 

Scotch-Irish, on nullification, 
120 n. 

Secession: advocated, 57; de¬ 
nounced, 143; relation of, to 
nullification, 56, 57, 88, 223, 
304; little thought of in 
1830, 62; Unionist attitude 
toward, 212, 294. See also 
Disunion. 

Senate of South Carolina. 
Assembly. See Legislature of 
South Carolina and maps in 
text. 

Seventy-six Association of 
Charleston, 147, 196, 345. 

Seyle’s Long Room, Union head¬ 
quarters, 146. 

Slavery, and the parties, ro7, 
107 n. 

Smith, Robert Barnwell. See 
Rhett, Robert Barnwell. 


Smith, Judge William, Congress¬ 
man : anti-nationalistic reso¬ 
lutions in legislature of 1825 
introduced by, r, 35; moder¬ 
ation advocated by, 60, 95 n.; 
nullification opposed by, 130; 
Union leader, 134, 203 n. 

South, the: impoverished by the 
tariff or not, 5, 6, 7 n., 15, 16, 
47, 49 , 61, 114, 129, 135 , MU 
164, 189, 190, 192, 289, 302; 
Union of, advocated, 7, 48, 
92; North, opinion of, con¬ 
cerning, 9; union of policy 
urged in, 23, 304; and dis¬ 
union, 32, 217; and state 
sovereignty doctrine, 43; 
weak position of, 81, 82, 291, 
307; and nullification, 120, 
130, 224, 270, 273, 286. 

South Carolina: ridiculed at 
North, 9; impoverished by 
tariff, 12; excises proposed 
in, 21; Jackson supported by, 
in 1828, 32; changes in tariff 
views of, 53; duty of, in 1831, 
66, and in 1832, 165. 

South Carolina Canal and Rail¬ 
way Company, aid of congress 
sought by, 50 n. 

South Carolina College: Dr. 
Thomas Cooper, president of, 
3; Professor Henry of, 17, 
18. 

South Carolina Manufacturing 
Company of Society Hill, 
Darlington district, samples of 
work of, shown, 21. 

Spartanburg district: test oath 
opposed by, 327; Union cen¬ 
ter, 282 n. 

State courts. See Courts, State. 

“State Guard.” See State 
Rights party (x.fl. military 
preparations of). 


396 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


“State Rights,” opinion of, on 
the legislature of 1829, 41. 

State Rights associations. See 
State Rights party. 

State Rights doctrine. See 
State sovereignty. 

State Rights party: Nullifi¬ 
cation party, not well organ¬ 
ized in 1828, 13, 25; original 
purpose of, 17; campaign of 
education by, 60, 64; public 
dinner of, July, 1830, 62; 
leaders of, 84, 85, 104 n., 129, 
133, 196; convention in 1830 
supported by, 90, 91; an¬ 
swered by Unionists, 67-80, 
117, 118, 172-91; meeting 

of, at Columbia in September, 

1830, 92; and election of 1830, 

99-103; in legislature of 1830, 
103-10; new campaign of 
education by, in 1831, 108-11, 
119-23; name of, changed, 
112, 153; associations of, 

formed in 1831, 124, 150, 154; 
convention of, in December, 

1831, 125, 126; associations 

of, condemned by Unionists, 
126, 325; convention of asso¬ 
ciations of, in February, 1832, 
164; accused of evil motives, 
130, 166, 167; July 4, cele¬ 
bration of, 1831, 146-48; 

disunion charge, denied by, 
150; Jackson, denounced by, 
15°, i53> 159, 160, 228, 238; 
and Charleston election of, 
1831, 156; wait-awhile policy 
of, in 1831-32, 159, 162; 

campaign of, in 1832, 165, 
172, 193; tariff of 1832, views 
of, on, 166-70; meeting of 
associations of, 194; and 
election of 1832, 203-6; mili¬ 
tary preparations of, 219, 224, 


230, 249-55, 268, 276-80, 291, 
306-9; and tariff of 1833, 264; 
nullification suspended by, 
272-75; convention of, re¬ 
assembled, March, 1833, 289- 
93; on force bill, 305; and 
Charleston election of, 1833, 
314; congressional election of 
1833,314; test oath supported 
by, 316-19, 326, 334 , 335 , 337 , 
338, 340, 346-48; associations 
of, revived, 337; and Charles¬ 
ton election of, 1834,351; and 
state election of, 352; com¬ 
promise of, on test oath, 350- 
61. 

State sovereignty: state rights 
doctrine invoked and sup¬ 
ported, 11, 38, 39, 47, 49, 54 n., 
55, 61, 62, 66, 99, 178, 213, 
255 , 292, 305, 340 , 346 ; de¬ 
nounced and opposed, 62, 68, 
69, 199, 340; perverted use 
of, 17; in 1824-28, 35; South 
Carolina not a unit upon, 42, 
43 - 

Submission party, term applied 
by Nullifiers to Unionists, 86, 
133, 133 n-> 160, 201. See 
also Union party. 

Sullivan’s Island, Charleston 
harbor, military importance 
of, 230, 257. 

Supreme Court of United States: 
and the tariff, 6; and nulli¬ 
fication, 62, 214, 221, 232, 
284; and the Constitution, 3; 
Unionist views of, 71, 142, 
177 - 

Tariff, the, of 1824, denounced, 
2; constitutionality of, denied, 
3, 4, 6, 9, 18, 20, 67, 117, 123, 
141, 213; constitutionality of, 
upheld, 16, 29, 117, 118, 129, 


Index 


397 


143-46; resolutions against, 
in 1825, 1; Harrisburg meet¬ 
ing to promote, 5; of Abomi¬ 
nations, 1828, 6; anti-tariff 
communications in 1828, 8, 9, 
23; anti-tariff meetings of 
1828, 10, 11, 17; effects of, 
upon South Carolina, 12, 28, 
30, 50 n., S3, 189, 190, 192; 
pro-tariff communications, 26- 
30; legislature of 1824 on, 
35, and of 1828 on, 35, 36; 
less agitation over in 1829, 36, 
37; legislature of 1829 on, 44, 
455 in Congress, 46, 47; of 
1830, 48; pro-tariff argu¬ 
ments, 50, 113-17, 143-46; 
in South Carolina in 1816, 51, 
117 n.; and nullification, 58; 
anti-tariff arguments, 108, 
no, 114, 216; effect of, on 
price of cotton, 115, 116, 145, 
149 , 313, 314; of 1832, 165- 
69; in Congress of 1833, 263, 
264, 270, 286, 287, 288; con¬ 
vention of 1833 on, 289, 290; 
compromise tariff in South 
Carolina, 301-3, 312. 

Taylor, Colonel, Union leader, 
134 - 

Tazewell, L. W., Senator, of 
Virginia, 240. 

Telescope, The Columbia: posi¬ 
tion of, set forth, 37, 38; 
Walterborough meeting of 
June, 1828, disapproved of, 
by, 20. 

Tennessee, 177, 202, 203 n.; and 
nullification, 227, 241, 270. 

Test oath: supported, 288, 289, 
296, 317, 318, 326, 332, 334- 
40, 346-48; opposed, 246, 
247, 296-99, 316, 318, 319, 
321-31, 334 , 335 , 337 , 34 °, 
344 , 348, 349, 353 , 356; 


provided for by convention, 
289, 293; legislature given 
power to act on, 299, 316, 317, 
325, 326; compromise on, 
356-66. 

Thompson, General Waddy, 
consumption of northern prod¬ 
ucts opposed by, 3. 

Times, The Columbia Southern: 
and disunion, 80; on test oath, 
360. 

Tories, Nullifiers call Unionists 
Tories, 238. 

Treason, definitions of, 178, 183, 
184, 212, 219, 237, 239, 255, 
256, 270, 283, 337, 340, 344, 
349 , 355 - 57 - 

Turnbull, Robert J.: “Brutus,” 
author of The Crisis, advocate 
of nullification, 63, 64 n., 106, 
173; answered, 14; conven¬ 
tion address, written by, 215; 
death of, 309. 

Tyler, John, of Virginia, oppo¬ 
nent of Jackson, 239, 240. 

Union, the federal: Dr. Thomas 
Cooper on, 3; constitutional 
basis of, 32; purposes of, 38; 
formation of, 58; love for, 61, 
80, 96, 104, 173, 216, 290, 
291; character of ( see also 
Federal government; Jack- 
son, Andrew; State Rights 
party; Union party). 

Union district, anti-tariff meet¬ 
ing of, 11 n. 

Union party: leaders of, 14, 67, 
97 , 98, 104 n., 134, 196; con¬ 
trol of state by, in 1828, 24; 
not well organized in 1828, 
25; nullification decried by, 
60, 67-80, 128-49, 172-91, 
244; position held by, 67- 
80; protective tariff opposed 


398 Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 


by, 67, 80, 155; state sover¬ 
eignty, position of, on, 68, 69; 
on federal judiciary, 70, 71; 
on call of federal convention 
by one state, 73, 75, 77; on 
nullification and war, 74, 78; 
would support revolution if 
decided upon by state, 79; 
convention in 1830, opposed 
by, 90, 96, 97; convention, 
favored by part of, 94; or¬ 
ganization of, in 1830, 97, 98; 
and election of 1830, 99-103; 
in legislature of 1830, 103-10; 
tariff, views of, on, 115-18, 
144, 166, 167, 171, 266; State 
Rights associations opposed 
by, 126, 154, 154 n-; July 4, 
celebration of, 1831, by, 146, 
147, 148; supported by Jack- 
son, 15^53, 229, 234, 236, 
246, 268, 271, 283-85; Jack- 
son, supported by, 155, 159, 
160, 161, 228, 234, 246, 268, 
271, 281, 283-85; and Charles¬ 
ton election, 1831,156; in legis¬ 
lature of 1831, 158-63; Wash¬ 
ington societies formed by, 
196; co-operation favored by, 
197-202; convention of, 1832, 
201, 202; and election of 1832, 
203-6; constitutionality of 
extra session of legislature 
questioned by, 208; and call 
of state convention in 1832, 
209-12; threats against, 215, 
216, 255; and legislature of 
1832,218,219; military prep¬ 
arations of opponents decried 
by, 224, 281, 311; military 
preparations of, 248, 281, 282, 
327, 33 °, 34 i, 342 , 343 , 347 ; 
Hayne’s counter-proclamation 
ridiculed by, 243; convention 
of, in Columbia, December, 


1832, 246-48; and tariff re¬ 
duction in 1833, 265, 266; 
and consolidation, 267; State 
Rights suspension of nulli¬ 
fication ridiculed by, 275, 288, 
312; union societies formed, 
281; test oath, opposition of, 
to, 293, 296-302, 316, 317, 
319, 321-40, 348-50, 353, 

356; party convention of, 
March, 1833, postponed, 293, 
294; Calhoun answered by, 
312; and Charleston election 
of 1833, 3x4; and congres¬ 
sional election of 1833, 314; 
convention of, in March, 1834, 
329, 33°, 3335 and Charleston 
election of 1834, 351; and 
state election of 1834, 352; 
test oath, compromise of, 
356-61. 

Union and State Rights Gazette, 
The Charleston, pro-tariff, 143, 
144, 146. 

Up-country districts, distrust of, 
88; convention favored by, 
93; convention opposed by, 
107; and test oath, 328, 332. 

Uplands. See Up-country dis¬ 
tricts. 

Usurpations of the central gov¬ 
ernment: protests against in 
1825, 1, 2, 17, 59; legislature 
of 1824, on, 35; of 1829, 44. 

Van Buren, Martin: caution, 
advised by, 258, 259; and 
politics, 259-61. 

Vermont, oath of allegiance, 296. 

Verplanck tariff bill. See Tariff. 

Virginia: anti-nationalistic move¬ 
ment in, 1; and tariff of 
1828, 13; resolutions of, in 
1798, 33, 139, 176, 214, 258, 
292; and nullification, 120, 


Index 


399 


176 n., 225, 226, 239-42, 262, 
284; and the Philadelphia 
anti-tariff meeting, 113; medi¬ 
ation offered by, 273-75, 287, 
291, 292, 306. 

Walterborough meeting: of 

June, 1828, 19, 20, 25; of 
October, 1828, 33; of July, 
1829, 37; of February, 1830, 
52 n.; Jackson, denounced 
by, 150; “manifesto” of, 
July, 1832, 174. 

Washington, George, 117 n., 128. 

Washington Society, a Union 
organization, 196, 246. 

Webster, Daniel, 149; debate of, 
with Hayne, 49, 64, 65; and 
politics, 260; debate of, with 
Calhoun, 312; political creed 
of, 348. 

West, the, and internal improve¬ 
ments, 164. 


Whig associations, Nullifiers’ 
organizations, 345. 

Whigs, Nullifiers of South Caro¬ 
lina call themselves Whigs, 
238, 278. 

Whitner, Benjamin F., 91 n. 

Wilde, R. H., of Georgia, on the 
tariff, 286. 

Wilkins bill. See Force bill. 

Williams, David R.: on the 
tariff and disunion, 18, 19; 
and manufacturing, 132 n. 

Williams, Thomas, convention, 
opposed by, 104 n. 

Williamsburg district, test oath, 
opposition of, to, 327. 

Wilson, Governor John L., mes¬ 
sage of, in 1824, 35. 

Wirt, William, 159. 

York district: anti-tariff meet¬ 
ing in, 11 n.; test oath opposed 
by, 327, 349- 


























•y 






^ C. s 


■> 



^a v* 

\ ^ fi t S* 

^y '^7> = % ^' y' " 

-,w* ^ 

*^£. y O * V * 

O' c 





■^, *V „ N 

.... %'•"' J> ..«■.,%*< '\.n a .... 

' 

oo' 

*> 

° <H ^ >^5 ;«- ^ .\ "-• ^ "sr v 

v v\- <<■ -. . > j. • /■ V > O 

O :' rj, t~ v f) C- y *0.1* cP 

-> .^jYrh-. . v “* A \-V ' 

= ' ^A V s 



^A V* 






•* c ^ * / * * ' 

* . -rt 

^V-V \ws§; $%. -.S*.' y- '\\ 

& l’> <CLa A '■ /f^ \ ^ _ . 

O 4 n . ** -A' «"** X/ / s S /\ ^ y 0 * ^ 

«'.'#* *^J r$ | 0 N c « ^ 

SN L 


* ^A **' 


'*o o N ; -,, :•• 
o> ^ - Cf- 

> 'y£. 4. -, 

, S <§r +& V ' , 0 ° 

'** * ’ -A A ■% y o\ i ■*" 4 ^ 

^ A* v t • 1 ' ' * *b ft? c 0 * C * 

* _ - ' A' 

^ 0 X ® f- 

o 5 ^ 

^ * A > V* <* ^ « 

o rs- «/ . ' * c^_ ^ : \ (A. 

















